Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Homelessness

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to deal with homelessness.

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to increase the supply of accommodation for single homeless people in London.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Patten): I am reviewing the homelessness legislation and hope to announce conclusions soon.

Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister find anything obscene about the contradiction between homelessness doubling in the past two years and the squalid episode of Cabinet Ministers trying to decide which country mansion they should have? I understand that the Leader of the House is satisfied with his home, if not with his job. Will the Minister compare that with the plight of young homeless people that we see day after day in London? Many of them have come from constituencies in the north and in Scotland and Wales. They have taken the Government's advice to come to London for jobs, but they find no hope, no jobs and no future. Now that the Housing Act 1988 has

failed, will the Minister take as much interest in the problems of the homeless as the Prime Minister does in the housing problems of her Cabinet?

Mr. Patten: Perhaps I could deal with the serious part of that speech. In our review of homelessness legislation we are looking in particular at three matters. We are looking, first, at scope for greater consistency between authorities, secondly, at the need for improved management, and thirdly, at the need to achieve better use of existing stock by reducing the number of empty properties and cutting relet times. Some housing authorities have improved their performance on those scores, but we want to see all doing as well as the best.

Sir George Young: In the review to which my right hon. Friend has referred, will he ensure that the potential of the tenants' incentive scheme is fully explored? Does he recognise that the quickest and most cost-effective way of tackling homelessness, especially in London, is to use that scheme to persuade existing council tenants to move out, particularly if they have retired and no longer wish to live in the city?

Mr. Patten: That is one of a number of initiatives that we need to examine carefully. I know how much my hon. Friend knows about this issue and I shall, of course, want to consult people such as my hon. Friend before reaching any conclusions.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise because in the excitement I forgot to call Mr. Harry Cohen.

Mr. Cohen: This week several Ministers are moving on, but the single homeless have a more serious problem. Does the Minister recognise that there are more than 50,000 homeless single teenagers in London alone and that the figure is increasing rapidly? The London boroughs' working party on the single homeless has said that there is a shortfall of at least 5,500 places per year, resulting in the hostels silting up with people who want more permanent accommodation. The working party describes it as an acute problem. Will the Minister provide resources and free the local authorities and housing associations to help the single homeless?

Mr. Patten: I refer the hon. Gentleman to our hostels initiative, which has helped to deal with the problems of young people without accommodation. We have provided about 20,000 places under that initiative, and are increasing our grants to voluntary bodies. It is also important to take into account the £74 million that we have provided for the authorities with the most acute problems to get empty property back into use for the homeless. That initiative was rightly welcomed by the Select Committee on the Environment.

Mr. Heddle: Does not homelessness have its foundations in rootlessness? Does my right hon. Friend agree that families, and particularly parents, have a real part to play in this? Will he confirm that the Housing Corporation and the voluntary housing movement also have a real part to play and that the corporation has had an extra £40 million this year and by 1991–92 will provide a further 24,000 homes for those in genuine housing need?

Mr. Patten: There are social reasons for at least part of the homelessness problem, and my hon. Friend was right


to draw attention to them. He was also right to point to the importance of the Housing Corporation and housing associations. This year, a quarter of the Housing Corporation's increasing programme for rent is going to schemes designed to help the homeless.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State investigate Westminster city council's so-called "building stable communities" policy? Is he aware that the council's housing department has described the consequences of selling flats in eight key wards in the City of Westminster as resulting in the council being unable to meet its statutory obligations under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that even Conservative councillors such as councillor Patricia Curwen describe the policy as gerrymandering? Is he also aware that Queen's Counsel has given an opinion, on the record, that the policy has an "utterly unlawful purpose"? How much longer can Ministers keep silent in the face of overwhelming evidence of abuse of power right under their noses, in the heart of the capital city? Is it because they want to criticise local government only when it is Labour controlled, but turn a blind eye when councils are Tory controlled?

Mr. Patten: I can give the hon. Gentleman a simple and straightforward answer. The points that he has raised and the allegations that he has made are matters for the council's auditors.

Chlorofluorocarbons

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the reduction of chlorofluorocarbons use which will be achieved in the United Kingdom by the end of the year.

The Minister for Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I expect that by the end of this year the consumption of chlorofluorocarbons in this country will have been cut by at least 50 per cent. This is required by the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, but only by 1999. We will therefore be 10 years ahead of our international commitments in this area.

Mr. Hind: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved promotion, and we welcome him as our green Minister. His answer will be welcomed throughout the country, but he will be aware of the concern of the public generally about the need to accelerate the process of dealing with CFCs. What does he intend to do about that, and how will he deal with the little-known problem of halons?

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his compliment. On the substantive point, we should like to move faster. The United Kingdom and the whole of the European Community are calling for cuts in CFCs of at least 85 per cent. as soon as possible, with the elimination of CFCs by the end of the century. Timing has to take account of the speed with which industry can move away from CFCs. Halons must also be phased out eventually, but as yet there are no acceptable substitutes. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on CFCs, although it is important to keep halons under careful scrutiny, particularly in the light of the welcome steps by the fire prevention industry to curb unnecessary and wasteful use of these substances.

Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that although there has been some progress, it has not been as a direct result of Government action? Will he agree that there must now be Government intervention to deal with the rest of the CFCs, and that a reduction of 90 per cent. in 12 to 18 months would be a realistic objective? Is he aware that the Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association is concerned about the general level of uptake of refrigeration in recycling services, and will he give the House some idea of what provision there will be in the green Bill to deal with that? Finally, what advice has the Minister to offer the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will have to make a big contribution to ensuring that industry has Government support to deal with this great problem?

Mr. Trippier: It was less than generous of the hon. Lady to suggest that the Government had not taken a number of initiatives in this area. It was British scientists with the British Antarctic survey, sponsored by the Government, who first obtained conclusive evidence of the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. In 1985, the Government were the first to sign the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, which was then ratified in 1987. It was this Government's initiative to host the saving of the ozone layer conference in London in March, which was so successful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined that the United Kingdom Government should remain in the lead on these initiatives—a fact which is recognised in the international community, even if it is not acknowledged by the small-minded and ungrateful Labour party.

Dr. Michael Clark: Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the chemical industry for finding alternative propellants to CFCs and will he consider legislating in favour of those CFC replacements for aerosols and refrigerators?

Mr. Trippier: I cannot respond as positively as my hon. Friend would like in relation to legislation, but I am happy to take this opportunity to praise British industry for the way in which it has responded to the initiatives taken by the Government and within Europe. The British Aerosol Manufacturers Association has promised that at least 90 per cent. of aerosols will be CFC-free by the end of this year. The polyurethane foam manufacturers expect a 60 per cent. cut in CFC use by the end of 1993. Extruded polystyrene used as food packaging and in building installation should be free of CFCs by the end of the year. That is a good record on which we should compliment British industry and encourage it to do even more.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on the relative sources of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere in the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Statistics on carbon dioxide emissions for the years 1977 to 1987 from domestic, industrial, transport and other sources were published in the Department's digest of environmental protection and water statistics, no. 11, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

Mr. Wallace: I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful reply. It is clear that a substantial proportion of these emissions—up to 16 per cent.—come from road traffic use. Given the Government's projections of increased road traffic, there will be an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from cars until the year 2005. The Minister's answer showed that the causes include energy, transport, industrial and domestic sources, all of which are the responsibilities of different Ministries. What powers are available to her Department to co-ordinate all those sources and to ensure that there is one co-ordinated policy to deal with carbon dioxide emissions? Does she agree that the problem should not be tackled by being dispersed among several Ministries?

Mrs. Bottomley: Having heard the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that he will pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her seminar at Downing street on climatic change, which was precisely an attempt to draw together the various Government Departments concerned with carbon dioxide emissions. Fifty-seven per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions come from power stations, 14 per cent. from domestic properties and 16 per cent. from road transport.

Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend mentioned the recent conference, can she confirm that the advice from the Harwell scientists to that conference is that 50 per cent. of the solution to our problems will come from energy efficiency, and some 15 per cent. from nuclear power? Is she satisfied that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is fully prepared to go along with the outcome and the means of dealing with the problem, rather than merely raising it?

Mrs. Bottomley: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Energy efficiency has an important part to play, as do land use and the economic pricing of fuel. It is clear that there is a role for nuclear energy—which produces neither acid rain nor carbon dioxide, leading to the greenhouse effect.

Mr. Morley: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Commission on their initiative in urban fringe forestry? Is she aware that the pilot schemes are substantially limited by the amount of financial resources available? Does she agree that the extension of those forests will do a great deal to absorb carbon dioxide, improving our environment and providing recreation facilities? Will she give the House an assurance that more resources will be made available to extend that very worthy project?

Mrs. Bottomley: I congratulate the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Commission on that important initiative. More than that, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on his initiative in tackling the problem of the rain forests and forestry on an international basis. Although forestry in Britain may have a part to play, deforestation in the Third world is a far more significant factor in climate change.

Bathing Water

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to require water authorities to make public their long-term plans to improve the quality of bathing waters at coastal resorts; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The Department is in discussion with the water authorities about the accelerated programmes of improvement that they have drawn up to bring bathing waters up to European Community standards by the mid-1990s. They will be made public in due course.

Mr. Taylor: While bathing waters at Southend on sea have been vastly improved by the installation of an extended sewage pipe which, happily, has transferred our problem to other constituencies, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that we do not have the slightest idea about the long-term plans of the Anglian water authority, despite the endeavours of energetic Members of Parliament to establish what they are? As the water authorities are wholly non-elected bodies, answerable to no one but the Secretary of State, would it not be appropriate to require the water authorities to tell the people what their long-term plans are, as it is the people who are paying for them?

Mr. Howard: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's assessment of the effect of long sea outfalls, which were recognised by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution as the most effective way of dealing with sewage. However, I agree that more information needs to be made public about the long-term plans of the water authorities. That information will be made public shortly.

Mr. John P. Smith: Does the Minister recognise that something must be done about the indiscriminate discharge of raw sewage into the sea, and in particular into the Bristol channel? Not only is the Welsh water authority failing to attain the standards that should be expected in this day and age, but the quality of water is declining. In my constituency, on Fontygary beach, the voluntary coast guards—the courageous men and women who safeguard our beaches—are advised not to go into the water except in emergencies because of the level of pollution, and I had the appalling experience of seeing those men and women coming out of the water covered in human excrement. That is not acceptable in this day and age.

Mr. Howard: A great deal is being done to improve present conditions. The water authorities are spending £100 million per year on improving the quality of our bathing waters. I have asked them to accelerate their programme of improvement, and I expect to make their plans public shortly.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a long outfall policy is analagous to the tall chimney policy which led us into such great difficulty with air emissions, based on the principle of "dilute and disperse" which is now somewhat discredited?

Mr. Howard: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's views on the matter, but I do not think that his analogy is apt. All the available evidence suggests that long sea outfalls are an effective way of dealing with sewage, and


that the action of the sun and the sea is a natural reproduction of the artificial method of treatment employed in sewage treatment works.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Now that there is a new boss at the Department of the Environment I expected that the Government might have started to tell the truth about the environment and our bathing beaches. Does the Minister accept that the 300 beaches designated as bathing beaches is a gross underestimate and that the Royal Commission on environmental pollution identified 600 bathing beaches? In any event only 30 per cent. of the 300 designated conform to EC standards. It is not surprising that all the beaches on the north-west coast are polluted, whether designated or not. It is not surprising that Albert and Mrs. Ramsbottom took their chance with the lions because if they had gone into the sea neither of them would have come out alive. When will the Government prepare plans and commit the necessary expenditure to stop raw sewage going into the sea, including through long sea outfalls, and when will they stop dumping sewage sludge in the sea?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The number of designated bathing waters is not 300, but 403, and the proportion complying with the EC directive is 67 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's complaints are paricularly rich coming from a party which when in government failed to designate any bathing waters at all in this country four years after the directive came into force.

Mr. Paice: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us a bit more about bathing beaches on the other side of the Channel? Is it not true that many European bathing beaches fail to meet the EC directive? Surely it is more important for the Community to consider the problem throughout Europe rather than concentrating on the state of British beaches.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. France is one of five countries in respect of which the Commission has made complaints about the standard of bathing waters. In this, as in so many other respects, our record compares extremely well with the rest of Europe.

Inner Area Programme

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to increase funding resources available for the inner area programme above the inflation rate.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): Future resource allocations for local authorities preparing an inner area programme will depend on the outcome of the public expenditure discussions now under way.

Mr. Pike: I congratulate the Minister on his new post. Will he confirm that dealing with areas of urban deprivation is still a Government priority and that adequate resources will be available to deal with that problem? Will he also categorically state that there are no plans to remove from the inner area programme any area currently receiving help from that programme?

Mr. David Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first two propositions. With regard to the cities involved in the inner area programme, I have received a number of

representations from right hon. and hon. Members for further inclusions in the programme. I can therefore give no categorical assurance about future numbers involved. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Burnley, where the IAP strategy is clearly presented and soundly based. That is why so much increased funding has been made available to Burnley.

Mr. O'Brien: It is a fact beyond dispute that since the "Action for Cities" statement was made little has been achieved by the Government. Even the £34 million allocated for city grant has proved abysmal and is less than a quarter of that requested to meet demand. Will the new Minister pursue the argument in favour of the inner area programme and urban regeneration and seek to convince his colleagues the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that it is important that resources should be made available to meet the demand for inner city and urban regeneration?

Mr. Hunt: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to say all that again, as he not only got his facts wrong, but he got most of the statistics wrong as well. The urban programme was the first major public spending programme targeted solely on inner cities. It has been a tremendous success. The latest expenditure plans show that substantial increased resources are available. Within urban block expenditure there are more resources for the urban development corporations and city grant, because these items are much more successful in attracting private sector investment to inner cities.

Sewage Discharges

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to enable him to override those local authorities which permit new outlets for the discharge of raw sewage into the sea.

Mr. Howard: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is responsible for granting authorisations for the discharge of sewage into the sea, although this responsibility will transfer to the National Rivers Authority from I September 1989.

Mr. Speller: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend, who represents Folkestone—another seaside town—how long it will be before his Department accepts responsibility for what goes into the waters around our coasts? Does he recall that, over the past four weeks his Department has told me in answer to questions first, that there is no target date for our beaches and water meeting the EEC standards; secondly, that all planning requirements are the responsibility of local government; thirdly, that all matters relating to pollution are matters for water authorities, but those concerning new pollution are within the responsibility of Her Majesty's barely formed inspectorate of pollution; and, fourthly, that all new sea outfalls are to be considered as the logical way of disposing of raw sewage? May I finally ask my hon. and learned Friend——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That will be the fifth question.

Mr. Speller: Fifthly, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, in answer to my question, which he has not answered, he will seek to revoke the permission whereby Welsh Water, Wessex Water and South West


Water may each pollute the Bristol channel over the next 12 months? Will my hon. and learned Friend stop that happening?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Howard: The accelerated programme of dealing with bathing waters is intended to achieve compliance with the European Community's directive by the mid-1990s. Although we are always prepared to examine new evidence that will help us assess the effect of the schemes to which my hon. Friend referred, all the evidence, including that of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, suggests that dealing with sewage by long sea outfalls at coastal resorts is in many circumstances the most effective way of dealing with the problem. If my hon. Friend has fresh evidence to bring before us, of course we will be happy to consider it.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that in most cases we are talking the lack of investment in what amounts to a massive slum below the surface for almost every major city and town? When will the Government recognise that only by tackling this problem will they begin to deal with the pollution of rivers and streams?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will remember, no doubt, that the Government that he supported cut investment in sewerage services by 50 per cent. The Sandown dock scheme in Liverpool, which will shortly be in operation, will provide a method of treating sewage produced in Liverpool which, until now, has been pumped into the Mersey—not through long sea outfalls but in a way that I imagine no hon. Member would condone. Vast improvements will be achieved as a result of the Sandown dock scheme. That is an example of the investment in these facilities that has taken place under the present Government.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister realise that the majority of the British public cannot accept his complacency on this issue and that they believe that the Government should take a lead? Is it not a fact that at present only the British EEC representatives object to an EEC proposal for a directive that will prevent the dumping of sewage sludge at sea and long sewage outfalls for raw sewage being put into the sea? Why is Britain out of line, given all the recent evidence on this subject? Do the Government object because they favour the dumping of sewage at sea, or because they do not want the privatised water companies to have to pick up the bill for compliance?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is wholly wrong; we are not objecting. We have yet to see the text of the draft European Commission directive on these matters because it has not yet been published. The hon. Lady should recognise that there is no easy solution to the problem and that many people would regard with dismay a requirement to construct sewage treatment works on the front at every seaside coastal resort with the consequent lorries going to and fro taking sludge away from the works. Perhaps the hon. Lady would prefer an incinerator with all the environmental consequences which would follow from that method of dealing with the matter.

Housing Corporation

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of funding for the Housing Corporation in (a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

Mr. Howard: The Housing Corporation's gross capital expenditure was £752 million in 1987–88 and £791 million in 1988–89.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that over the years, the Housing Corporation has done an excellent job, but that there are two matters about the Housing Corporation that concern people at present? First, they are concerned about alms houses because of the change in the law. I have had letters, as I am sure other hon. Members have from alms house residents who are fearful of the bureaucracy and heavy handedness of the Housing Corporation in regard to well-established alms houses. Secondly, has my hon. and learned Friend had time to read the Housing Corporation's recent report about housing associations, in which all money spent is meant to be for those on lower incomes? As a result of changes in the rental system, too many people are stuck in the poverty trap. Housing benefit is too little and those who have little housing benefit have too low an income to pay the increased rents. Will my hon. and learned Friend examine that problem and ensure that the Housing Corporation is helpful?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the Housing Corporation. I have studied the advice given by the Housing Corporation to alms house charities that are registered with the corporation. Its advice is useful and wholly innocuous. I have seen the remarks by the chairman of the Housing Corporation in his introduction to its latest annual report and I hope to meet him soon to discuss his observations.

Mr. George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that although there is a growth in the approved development programme available to the Housing Corporation to fund housing association schemes, the system that his predecessor introduced last year is in such a mess that the budget is likely to be dramatically underspent? Instead of producing more houses, as was predicted, the system now produces fewer.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept that. These are relatively early days in the new system and we should study how it works before rushing to such judgments.

Mr. Raison: Given the drying up of council building, will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that in areas such as mine there is a substantial expansion of the funding made available to housing associations? There will not otherwise be enough housing to rent.

Mr. Howard: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. That is the objective of Government policy in this area. I shall examine my hon. Friend's comments when. I come to consider these matters.

Mr. Soley: It says something about the Government's housing policy that they give responsibility for housing to a Minister who is already overworked with the water privatisation problem. How is it that the housing associations, which have not yet reached the level of provision they achieved in the mid-1970s, are expected to


solve the acute crisis of a lack of low-cost accommodation for rent or sale when we have such an absurdly inadequate programme through the Housing Corporation and through other means under this Government?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about my work load. I assure him that the whole range of Government policies in these matters is designed to deal with the problem to which he referred and that we will be seen to be dealing with that problem with increasing effectiveness as time goes on.

Pollution

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to reduce environmental pollution.

Mr. Chris Patten: We are setting higher standards to reduce pollution; we have brought forward, and will bring forward, legislation to reform pollution control systems and to strengthen the powers available to control pollution at source and we have taken the lead in developing international initiatives on the environment.

Mr. Adley: I do not recall any hon. Member doing this so far, but let me welcome my right hon. Friend wholeheartedly to his new position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The whole House looks forward to his achieving the objectives that he stated in that answer.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that he now has the opportunity to stamp his mark irrevocably on the environment of Britain and that the internal combustion engine might be a good place for him to start? Does he agree that the oil companies and the motor manufacturing industry have for years dictated a slow pace of change in cleaning up the environment? Will he examine what is happening in California, where legislation is contemplated to eliminate the internal combustion engine by the year 2007 and to replace vehicles that use it with electric vehicles? Does he agree that, if we could do that here, the Patten Act, if it ever came to pass, would stand the test of time on the statute book?

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I should quite like to be in California at the moment—[Interruption.]—or, indeed, at any time. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will know that in California there was a revolt against a tax based on the value of property rather similar to the tax that he proposes.
Let me answer my hon. Friend's question. California's problems are much worse than anything that we face here, partly because of the number of cars, partly because of the climate and partly because, as I understand it, meteorological factors trap pollution in the air at a lower level. That said, I think that we should examine evidence from other countries and be ready to learn from them when we can. The environmental problems that we face are global and we must co-operate in solving them.

Mr. Alton: I endorse the congratulatory remarks that have been made to the Secretary of State. As he goes about making his mark, will he give some thought to part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and in particular to the way in which it is enforced by the water authorities? Is he aware that last year the North West water authority brought just 23 prosecutions against companies involved

in pollution and that the average fine was £670? Given the scale of the problem, does the Secretary of State agree that that is a paltry fine to impose on those responsible for pollution and that fines need to be looked at again in accordance with the principle that the polluter must pay?

Mr. Patten: Whether deliberately or inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case for the establishment of a strong new pollution control body, such as the National Rivers Authority proposed by the Government, which will enforce controls on a consistent national basis.

Mr. Marland: On environmental pollution, is my right hon. Friend aware that substantial efforts are being made by some private firms to rebottle CFCs from the back of old refrigerators and deep freezers? Bearing in mind that it is estimated that there are some 30,000 tonnes of CFCs banked in refrigerators, does my right hon. Friend think that his Department may be able to give some assistance in that vital development work in the interests of a cleaner environment?

Mr. Patten: It should be in the interests of industry itself to produce the technology to deal with the problem, although I shall certainly look into my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is, of course, difficult to deal with existing CFCs in the back of refrigerators, but it is a technology which must be cracked.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that perhaps the single most important step taken by the Government recently to reduce environmental pollution was to remove the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to the Department of Trade and Industry where he can pollute officially to his heart's content?
Will the Secretary of State, who is new to his job, look closely at the problem of acid rain which is causing so much concern not only in this country but in Scandinavia?

Mr. Patten: The great thing about the hon. Gentleman's jokes is that one can see them coming from the bottom of Victoria street. We are spending a considerable amount more on reducing emissions and the right hon. Gentleman—sorry, I was presumptuous—the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Tony Banks: Don't worry, I can wait.

Mr. Patten: The rest of the House will join the hon. Gentleman in that.
We are spending £2 billion on reducing sulphur dioxide emissions from existing large plants and we will continue to give the issue the priority that it deserves.

Dame Peggy Fenner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that my delight at his new role is tempered only by my disappointment that he has left a role in which he could have been the first international Minister to try to do something about the destruction of the rain forests? Will he join me in commending the action of the Countryside Commission in establishing forests in this country, recognising that the rest of the world should follow that example to counter the destruction of the rain forests?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a bit thick for us in Europe and north America to lecture developing countries about the destruction of the rain forests when we have made such a fist in the past 200 years


of destroying our own forests. The work carried out by the Forestry Commission is particularly important both nationally and internationally and we must consider issues such as reforestation from an economic as well as a topographical and ecological point of view. That is why I appointed today Professor David Pearce, the professor of economics at University college London and director of the London environmental economic centre, as a special adviser to provide me with economic advice on environmental matters.

Dr. Cunningham: With reference to the Secretary of State's remarks about taxes in California. I remind him that the poll tax is constitutionally outlawed in California.
With regard to safeguarding the environment, has the Secretary of State had time yet to study the paper produced for the Prime Minister by the energy technology support unit about global warming and the greenhouse effect? Does he recognise the force of the argument in that paper which points out that energy conservation can make a four times bigger contribution to reducing those problems than developing nuclear power? Will he therefore, in developing his policies to safeguard the environment, press for a major programme of energy conservation on which he will have the support of Opposition Members?
As the Secretary of State's predecessor said that it was the Government's intention to produce an environmental protection Bill in the autumn, will the Secretary of State consider discussions across the House about the nature and content of such a Bill? There should be a great deal of room for agreement on what such a Bill should include. I can tell the Secretary of State, as I told his predecessor, that the Opposition are willing to bring that co-operation to the House if there can be discussions.

Mr. Patten: On the first point, I totally agree that improving energy efficiency has a vital role to play in dealing with the problem of global warming and in dealing therefore with the associated problem of climate change. That is true of this country and of all developed and developing countries. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I want to make it clear straight away that I would not regard legislation that we might bring forward this autumn as our last word, or anyone's last word, on environmental protection.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: People are not very happy with the former Secretary of State's proposals.

Mr. Patten: That is not the point and I will get to that if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to.
There is an argument, which many people have put forward, that in addition to the legislation that we introduce this autumn, we should in due course publish a White Paper setting out longer-term objectives for the environment. I will want to consider that with my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I shall be happy at any stage, both in regard to legislation and in regard to any further statements of national policy that we produce, to talk to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and to his hon. Friends about how we can try to ensure that we meet the priorities of the environmental agenda as effectively as possible. It would help if, just from time to time,

Opposition Members would not regard every environmental statistic from the Government as a provocation. It would be nice if, occasionally, the Labour party would recognise achievements when they are made.

Community Projects

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the amount of money allocated by urban development corporations for the purpose of community projects and voluntary sector initiatives; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: It is for each urban development corporation to decide, within the total budget we have provided, what degree of resources to devote to community projects and voluntary sector initiatives.

Mr. Michie: On 24 May, the Minister told the House that a miserly 0·7 per cent. of the budget for the Sheffield UDC would be allocated to the voluntary community initiative. If the Government want to convince the community that UDCs are good for it, instead of criticising hon. Members who, with good reason, continue to knock UDCs, why do the Government not get their own house in order and guarantee that more money and more resources will be available for the community initiative?

Mr. Hunt: It is for the hon. Gentleman's own UDC to decide how to allocate funds, and the proportion of the budget that it allocates to community groups and projects. I pay tribute to Sheffield, which is one of the few areas that have actually appointed a community director. That is a very good move. UDCs should actively seek good relations and co-operation with local community groups.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are alleged to be two great problems? One is the rundown of the inner cities and the other is the enormous increase in the number of elderly people? Does he agree also that the second is not a problem but an opportunity? If more elderly people could be persuaded and helped to offer their skills and experience as volunteers, they could make an enormous impact on the problems of inner cities. To do that, they require a certain amount of pump-priming finance, and I hope that his Department will carefully look at that matter.

Mr. Hunt: I certainly hope that those involved in decision making within UDCs will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said. I prefer to recognise the problem as the challenge of the young-old. Those who retire earlier have a tremendous potential contribution to make to the community, particularly to inner cities.

.Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that there is nothing at all wrong with new administrative organisations and activities to solve new problems? We accept that UDCs have a role to play. Will he look at what has been happening in docklands and the UDC there? It is reported that hundreds of new dwellings that cannot be sold are being rented by the private sector at over £200 a week, fully funded by housing benefit. Surely it was not the intention that urban development corporations should result in such mismanagement of public funds.

Mr. Hunt: The whole point of our positive policies is to try to encourage people to want to live and work once


again in those crucial areas. The docklands UDC has been a marvellous example of a stimulus to that area. I would not want to deride its progress as the hon. Gentleman has.

Bathing Water

Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which bathing waters were identified for the purposes of the 1975 European Community bathing waters directive in (a) May 1979 and (b) May 1989.

Mr. Howard: The European Community's bathing water directive was adopted in December 1975 and gave member states two years to identify suitable bathing waters. By May 1979, no bathing waters had been identified by the then Labour Government. By May 1989, 403 coastal bathing waters had been identified. A full list of the identified bathing waters has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Bevan: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, I invite him to contrast the non-existent policy of the previous Labour Government with that of this Government. When he considers the challenge of clean beaches and holidaying, would he prefer a warm resort with beautifully clean water in Britain or one in the mucky Mediterranean or the atrociously dirty Adriatic, particularly in Italy?

Mr. Howard: I would, indeed, no doubt in company with my hon. Friend, prefer a beach in this country. My hon. Friend is entirely right. The figures speak for themselves and no further comment would be necessary if it were not that the Labour party consistently criticises the Government's performance and record on these matters, while it is blind and deaf to its own.

Building and Maintenance (Competition)

Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with local authority organisations over changes in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: My right hon. Friend and I have not had such consultations although our predecessors did.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister take notice of the comment of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the consultation on the new definition of emergency work is unworkable? It believes that the extension of competitive tendering to maintenance contracts where the value does not exceed 10 per cent. of the original contract would create chaos, not only in the direct labour organisations in the public sector but in the private sector. The tenders would be for small amounts and the administrative costs would be higher than the costs of doing the job.

Mr. Hunt: On the first point, we are trying to redefine the exemption of emergency work and I shall take note of the comments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We want to make sure that only genuinely unpredictable work is exempt and we are considering comments on our proposed redefinition. On the second point, it is important to extend competition to all building and maintenance work, to increase value for money for ratepayers and, in future, community charge payers.

Mr. Latham: Before my hon. Friend proceeds with legislation to implement the proposals in the town and country planning White Paper of a few months ago, will he consider it again carefully? It has the unique disadvantage of annoying county councils, district councils, house builders and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

Mr. Hunt: I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Blunkett: On 4 April, the Under-Secretary of State told us in the Local Government and Housing Bill Standing Committee that treasurers and directors of finance knew exactly the implications of the Bill's proposals for capital expenditure. Does he accept that that is simply not the case and that unless local authorities are informed quickly of the implications of that legislation, capital programmes in education, buildings, social services, roads and housing will be considerably disrupted? The result will be a threat to services and jobs, brought about by the inability of the Department of the Environment to come up with the answers.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will recall that before the Bill setting out the proposals for this new system of capital finance was drafted, a consultation document was produced outlining the main objectives of the new system. We had the widest possible consultation on it and all the views expressed were taken into consideration when drafting the Bill. Since then, there have been six meetings of the capital programmes working party, at which proposals were discussed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the working party is attended by representatives of the local authority associations and Government Departments.

East Quayside Development (Newcastle)

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the decision by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation to concentrate the £20 million subsidy on the East Quayside development in Newcastle; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the decision by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation to concentrate £20 million of subsidy on the East Quayside development in Newcastle; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: The answer is none. The Tyne and Wear development corporation has yet to determine the precise extent of its contribution to the proposed development at East Quayside.

Mr. Cousins: The Minister may not yet appreciate the enormous potential for commercial and financial services development in the city of Newcastle, so will he investigate why the urban development corporation in the city is obsessed with that one site on East Quayside, when at the west end of Central station there is a larger, flatter and more accessible site already in its ownership, but which does not figure in its plans or programmes?

Mr. Hunt: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed what he has just said with the city council, but as I understand it, the city council supported this proposal which I believe represents a major opportunity

for a comprehensive redevelopment of a prominent riverside site, which will help change the perspective of an area which was previously semi-derelict.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about local government finance in Scotland.
First, I wish to announce my decision on grant for Scottish local authorities in respect of 1990–91. In reaching that decision, I have had in mind the views expressed to me by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on its estimates of what it regards as required spending levels next year. I have also had in mind the substantial increase in the planned volume of spending by Scottish authorities this year, and the scope that undoubtedly exists for economies and efficiency improvements. A further factor is my undertaking given some time ago that—subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislative changes—I would make substantial initial progress next year in reducing the rate burden on Scottish businesses.
What I am announcing today is the total of aggregate Exchequer grant—that is, the total of specific grants and revenue support grant—that will be paid to Scottish local authorities for 1990–91.
I propose that aggregate Exchequer grant for 1990–91 should be set at £2,739 million. This is £242 million or 9·7 per cent. higher than the corresponding figure for this year. This figure, however, includes extra grant to allow business rates to be substantially reduced in line with the Government's stated objective of eliminating the difference in non-domestic rates between Scotland and England.
My new proposals on business rates, which I announced on 8 May, have been widely welcomed in Scotland, and we lost no time in presenting legislative proposals to the House on 14 June. I am happy to announce today that I propose that the rate bill for Scottish business next year should be reduced below what it would otherwise be by the sum of £80 million. The Confederation of British Industry has estimated the excess rate burden on Scottish business to be around £250 million, and we will therefore be closing that gap by almost a third in a single year. This represents very substantial progress. I know that this, together with the other steps that are being taken on harmonisation of valuation procedures north and south of the border, will be warmly welcomed by Scottish business and industry and by all those for whom the private sector in Scotland provides employment.
Local authorities will be compensated by increased grant of £67 million, which is included in the total figure of aggregate Exchequer grant which I have already given. As their contribution to this reduction in business rates, and in recognition of their welcome support for this policy, I am asking local authorities to recover the balance of £13 million by efficiency savings. This compares with total current expenditure for next year estimated by COSLA to be over £5,000 million. I am confident that it should be well within their capability to achieve these modest savings without threat to standards of service. My Department has already had useful discussions with COSLA on implementation of the new policy, details of which will be announced in the autumn.
The remainder of the total of aggregate Exchequer grant represents an increase of 7 per cent. on this year's figure. Taken together with business rate income, it should

enable local authorities, if they are prepared to take a grip on their spending, to set community charges not significantly higher on average than this year's levels. I hope that many authorities will already have recognised their excessive budgeting for this year and, in the knowledge of the reasonable grant settlement that I am announcing today, will now plan for reasonable levels of spending and of community charge next year. Detailed proposals for grant distribution will be put to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for consultation, in the usual way, in the autumn.
I also wish to take this opportunity to announce a number of changes that I am proposing to make to the arrangements for administering the standard community charge in Scotland. As hon. Members are aware, the standard community charge is paid by owners, or long-term tenants, of houses such as second homes which are not used as someone's sole or main residence. I have received a significant number of representations about the standard community charge and recently received a paper from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities outlining suggestions for change. I am quite clear that many of the problems that have arisen can be attributed directly to local authorities' decisions in almost every case to set their standard community charge multipliers at the maximum of two times the personal community charge, when they had been given discretion to set the multiplier anywhere between one and two.
Nevertheless, and in the light of the real problems that have as a result arisen, I have decided to make the following changes to the present arrangements. First, I intend to take powers to define certain classes of premises for which I will be able to prescribe a maximum multiplier. I will use that power to tackle, in particular, the very difficult case of the house that is unoccupied because the owner has to live with friends or relatives because of illness or infirmity. That is one situation in which a multiplier of up to two seems too high. If other categories of a comparable kind emerge, those powers will enable me to make provision for them.
I will also make provision to allow local authorities to determine, subject to certain conditions, their own classes of premises for which they could set different multipliers. That will allow them to take account of circumstances not covered by classes that I might prescribe, but which it is right should be the subject of local decision. That will give them, for example, discretion to set a different multiplier for the homes of old people in general who are living with relatives and for the homes of people obliged by their jobs to live in tied houses. Local authorities could also create other classes, depending on local circumstances; and a regional council would be able to set different maximum multipliers for its classes in different district council areas, something specifically requested by COSLA in the proposals which it put to me.
As a result, local authorities will have considerably greater flexibility in their operation of the standard community charge arrangements. I know, therefore, that the new arrangements will be welcomed. I am proposing that the necessary amendments to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 to allow for the introduction of those changes should be made in the context of the Local Government and Housing Bill, and amendments to that Bill will be tabled. The changes will come into effect for the financial year 1990–91.
Lastly, I propose to redefine the boundary between domestic and non-domestic property so that single dwellings available for holiday letting are subject to non-domestic rating rather than the standard community charge.
These proposals tackle the main problems that have emerged in relation to the incidence of the standard charge and are a direct response to the concerns expressed by local authorities and others. I hope that local authorities will reciprocate by using the additional discretion that they have now been given.

Mr. Donald Dewar: This is clearly a significant statement. It is good to see some signs that the Government have been listening and, perhaps, even learning. The aggregate Exchequer grant is more generous than in some previous years. I hesitate, but it would be pleasant, to ascribe that to the increasing influence of the new chairman of the Tory party in Scotland. However, that is probably optimistic.
The increase of 9·7 per cent. sounds generous, but a number of caveats must be made. It includes the £67 million for the reduction in the non-domestic rate. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that the true increase is about 7 per cent. As he knows, inflation is running at more than 8 per cent. at present, so there is certainly no way in which that could be said to represent an increase in the aggregate Exchequer grant in real terms. Will the Secretary of State accept that a great deal depends on the indexation of the non-domestic rate, which I understand is a question for the Chancellor? If that were to be below the retail prices index figure, it would directly affect a council's income.
I welcome the move to help the non-domestic ratepayer. The total allocated this year is £80 million. Will the Secretary of State give an estimate of the gap to be closed? I have seen figures for the subsidy required, which varies between £250 million and £400 million. No doubt, much depends on the harmonisation of rateable value and, as well as commenting on the gap, could the Secretary of State say a word or two about how that is progressing and whether it will be completed in the revaluation of 1990? In particular, can he say whether his approach, when using the £80 million, will sharply reduce the disparity in the central belt, where the non-domestic rate is highest, or whether he intends to reduce the differential, taking Scotland as a whole? What will be the impact of today's announcement on industrial derating? Will it be held at 40 per cent.?
I welcome any signs of flexibility on the standard community charge. Many—people all hon. Members will know of such cases in their constituencies—have modest second homes, perhaps cottages and flats, whose value is reflected in a low rate bill. They have suddently been faced with a massive increase of £400 or £500 with the arrival of the poll tax. I am glad that something has been done about the glaring injustice of an old person who moves in with relatives finding that his or her house is suddenly classed as a second home.
Am I right, however, in thinking that the general power to vary the standard charge between a multiplier of nil and two must be exercised on a district basis? For example, will a regional council be competent to decide that certain categories of houses, perhaps those that were below a certain rateable value in the last year of the old system, should attract a lower multiplier than others in the same

district? If that is not so, regional councils will be put in the difficult position of having to take a blanket approach that will inevitably create anomalies.
Does the Secretary of State accept that it is almost impossible to reconcile the treatment of second homes, by means of what is unashamedly a property tax, with the poll tax, which is a form of individual taxation?
While we are dealing with injustices, can the Secretary of State say whether he has had second thoughts about Alzheimer's disease because of the strong medical case which suggests that there is no essential difficulty in assessing when the illness has reached the point when exemption is justified? Is not the present situation, where patients with exactly the same presenting symptoms are treated in different ways for poll tax purposes, completely indefensible? Will he move on that matter?
The Secretary of State and his PR department have worked hard to try to establish this as a generous settlement. In fact, it is worse than a standstill, and it does nothing to undo the damage done to essential services and to the fabric of local democracy in recent years. He will certainly have to do better.

Mr. Rifkind: I think that the last two sentences were the only part of the hon. Gentleman's comments that were written before he saw the statement, as they bore little relation to his other comments. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, which described the settlement as "more generous than in recent years". I appreciate that his view of recent years may not be the same as mine. Nevertheless, I think that, by his standards, that amounts to a compliment. I confirm that the increase, when one removes the element relating to business rates, is 7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman suggests that is not sufficient, but it was COSLA itself which said that that was what it needed.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rifkind: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Mr. MacIver, the general secretary of COSLA, said that it required at least 7 per cent. to meet its needs—[HON. MEMBERS: "At least."]—and that is exactly what it has been provided with. [HON. MEMBERS: "When did he say that?"] I am happy to give that information. He was quoted in an article in the Glasgow Herald on 20 July as saying:
We are certainly hoping for an increase of at least 7 per cent. for the coming year.
The Government have been happy to respond to that aspiration, and that is the least that we are entitled to claim.
The hon. Member for Garscadden welcomed the proposals on business rates. I am grateful to him for that. The figure—or the gap—that has to be accommodated is £250 million. The CBI in Scotland has identified that figure and the Government have endorsed it as their best assessment of the gap. Meeting that to the extent of £80 million in the current year is a massive step towards eliminating a discrepancy that has been caused primarily by the high level of Scottish local authority expenditure, which the previous Labour Government made no attempt to deal with. Distribution will be dealt with later in the year when we announce the distribution of grant available.
Industrial derating will continue until the gap between rating levels in Scotland and England is eliminated. The original purpose of industrial derating was to assist with that difficulty.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's friendly comments on what the Government propose to do about the standard charge. I have to emphasis that what we are proposing is not a property tax—[Interruption.] No. As I explained, it is quite simple. The level of discretion available to the local authority will not depend on the kind of property that it is dealing with, but on the personal circumstances of the individual concerned. That is why it is consistent with the community charge principles on which we have put forward these matters.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Alzheimer's disease and whether the Government had anything to add on that matter. We have emphasised all along that if a method of dealing with the matter in a responsible way is identified in the way that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has explained on several occasions, we would have no objection in principle to seeking to accommodate people. I have nothing to say to the House today about that matter and I do not know whether it will be possible for such a distinction to be identified.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that the difficulties in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) found himself underlined the success of the statement? I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised if I concentrate on the standard community charge, on which I have campaigned and plagued him and our hon. Friend the Minister of State in recent months. I thank him warmly for his announcement. We are less worried about the classification of the charge as long as it moves in the right direction—as it does.
I should like to ask two questions. First, is my right hon. and learned Friend quite sure that it is right to leave discretion about some aspects with local authorities, given the way that local authorities have extracted the maximum that they are able to extract in the current year? Secondly, what is the position of people with a second home which may or may not be let but which may be held by someone of modest means who has not been paying much in rates? Will that be covered? If it is not, it should be.

Mr. Rifkind: I very much hope that even now local authorities will seriously consider whether they should insist on the maximum multiple or whether, as a generality, it would be appropriate to have a more modest figure. That option is available to them and I hope that they will take it. I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm welcome for the standard charge proposals. He explicitly asked about matters being left to the discretion of local authorities. We gave considerable thought to that question and think that it is appropriate that it should be left to local authority discretion.
As I sought to explain earlier, we are essentially dealing with the personal circumstances of individual standard charge payers. It would be difficult, either through primary legislation or by methods determined entirely by central Government, to distinguish in a way that would be sensitive to the personal circumstances of such standard

charge payers. I am pleased that, in its paper to us, COSLA said that if given these powers it would wish to use them and would recommend to local authorities that they should be used for the purposes that I have indicated. Therefore, we have every reason to assume that local authorities will use the powers that they asked for and have been given.

Mr. David Steel: We too welcome the sinner who repenteth. The Secretary of State will remember that only a month ago we moved a new clause to provide exactly this provision in the English Bill. It is a great pity that it was not accepted at that time. Some of us wish that the sinner would sound as if he repenteth. Does the Secretary of State accept that his repeated assertion that local authorities decided to apply a multiplier of two ignores the fact that the revenue support grant formula that he imposed assumed that they would apply that multiplier? In view of what the Secretary of State has said, will he say that if they do not do so in future they will not suffer under the revenue support grant system? As I understand it, if they had applied a multiplier lower than two in the past, they would have had to pass on the excess charge to all community charge payers at a level of perhaps £2 or £3 a head. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman come clean and admit that that is so?
Secondly, I should like to ask about the 7 per cent. support assumption in the coming year. As we have not yet got the NALGO pay settlement and as inflation is already running at 8·3 per cent., is that assumption not yet another sign that local government will continue to be severely squeezed? Local authorities in my area which are careful spenders will strongly resent that. Will he explain how it is that under this system Scottish poll tax payers will end up facing an average of well over £300 next year, compared with the English average of £275 and the Welsh average of £175? How has the Secretary of State for Wales managed to screw more out of the Treasury than the right hon. and learned Gentleman got?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me three questions, to which I shall respond. First, I am intrigued by this assumption that local authorities paid complete attention to the assumption in the rate support grant settlement with regard to the multiplier. If that was of such importance to them, I shall bear it in mind when determining what the assumption should be next year and we shall see what effect it has on local authority use of that discretion next year. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that proposition to me.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the NALGO pay settlements, which have not yet been resolved. Local authorities are the employers, so they have it in their own hands to determine what settlement they will agree to. I assume that COSLA had that in mind when it said that a 7 per cent. grant would meet its needs and that that was what it expected.
Thirdly, I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to explain the different assumptions that are being made about the likely level of community charge in Scotland compared with England and Wales. The reason is a simple one, which relates entirely to the different levels of local authority spending. Despite high grants from the Scottish Office—probably a level of grant that compares extremely favourably with either England or Wales—the expenditure of Scottish local authorities per capita is £978,


while in England it is £773 and in Wales £776. That is for comparable services, eliminating services, such as water, that are carried out by local authorities in Scotland, but not in England. Therefore, for exactly comparable services, there is expenditure per capita of £200 more in Scotland than in England or Wales. Therefore, I say to local authorities, "Physician, heal thyself."

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his excellent statement. I ask him to remind Scottish local authorities that it was purely for political reasons that they used the multiplier of two. When he comes to see what comparable categories emerge in the orders that he proposes, will he use as general a concept as possible so that it is not restricted to individual types, such as those that he mentioned, but in general gives equity to all who deserve it and should not be paying such a high charge?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the purpose of the discretion that has been made available is to deal with what both sides of the House would recognise are the particularly difficult cases—for example, an elderly person who might be living with a son or daughter, keeping his home empty for the time being while deciding whether he wishes to return to it, or a person who might have bought a house for his retirement but is still living in tied accommodation, or other such categories. When dealing with such cases, it is important that the full standard charge is not insisted upon. Local authorities have said that they would wish to use the discretion if they were given it to help in such cases and we are happy to enable them to do so.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: If the Government are intent on introducing amending legislation on local government finance, will the Secretary of State also take the opportunity to introduce an amendment to stop the disgraceful practice whereby people are being hounded for the poll tax even after they are dead?

Mr. Rifkind: I ask the hon. Gentleman to address any such complaints to the local authority in which he lives. The local authority is not answerable to me for the way in which it chooses to go for any debts to which it may be entitled.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I warmly welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend said about business rates. which are of great importance to jobs and the competitiveness of Scottish industry. Was not my right hon. and learned Friend's generous rate support grant for this year simply followed by excessive increases in expenditure by far too many Scottish local authorities? Does not the success of what he has said about RSG, and his welcome moves on the standard community charge, depend on the assumption that Scottish local authorities will act reasonably? If that assumption is not fulfilled, there will be outrage in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend can take some comfort from this: given that the increase in revenue support grant is equivalent to the projected level of inflation and at a figure that the local authorities themselves said corresponded to their needs, and if, as a consequence of the overall position, there is higher expenditure and there

are higher community charges than necessary, the finger of responsibility can be pointed in only one direction. I believe that that will concentrate the mind wonderfully.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Surely, at 7 per cent., the settlement is below the rate of inflation and a poorer deal than the one obtained in England and Wales—especially at a time of high interest rates. It must mean a cut in local government services.
When making these changes, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into the problem of those with Alzheimer's disease and explain what is holding him back from doing something about the inherent unfairnesses in the legislation?

Mr. Rifkind: On the second point, I cannot usefully add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said on several previous occasions.
On the earlier point, the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the rate of inflation that is relevant is not the current rate but the projected rate for the financial year in question. That is presumably why COSLA itself has said that 7 per cent. is appropriate.

Mr. Dick Douglas: When removing the supposed anomaly in relation to the standard rate, will the Minister have a care? Apparently, it will apply prospectively in England and Wales but not retrospectively in Scotland, because people will have already paid on properties that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says should be excluded.
In relation to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I have today received a letter saying that the local authority in Fife has gone for a four-day period. A man aged 55 died in Kincardine, and the authority has gone for £3·21. W hat feelings must be in the mind of the man's widow now that the local authority has imposed that on her? The Secretary of State must not tell us that the local authority is doing this willingly; it is doing it because it knows that the Accounts Commission would be on to it if it did not.

Mr. Rifkind: That is not true. I seem to recollect reading of a similar case in Grampian region in which, once the authority had identified the circumstances, it immediately declared them a de minimis case in which the sum would not be requested.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that local authorities can use their discretion to decide whether the circumstances are such that they will not seek payment. Naturally, we would all hope that local authorities will apply appropriate sensitivity to cases of personal tragedy of this sort—it is within their power to do so. The local authority in the Grampian region, in circumstances with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, did just that. I do not know the circumstances of his particular case, but if the local authority believes that it is justified to do so, it has complete discretion to act in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr Harry Ewing: Does not 'the Secretary of State understand the reason why £200 per head more is spent in Scotland than in England and Wales? It is because of his activities of the past few years in relation to local government services such as education, housing, roads and social work. We have more problems


in Scotland with these local government services precisely because of the activities of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other Scottish Office Ministers.
Why, having included a multiplier of two in the. legislation for the poll tax, does the Secretary of State now complain because local authorities are using that multiplier? He wants none of the blame for putting it in the legislation, but he now wants the credit for changing the legislation which he was responsible for imposing on local government in the first place.
As for the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—the problem of the sending out of accounts to people who have died since the last payment of the poll tax—I want the Secretary of State now to give every regional and islands authority in Scotland, and its councillors, an absolute guarantee that if they do not charge this poll tax they will not be surcharged. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obliged to provide such a guarantee.

Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, questions of surcharge only arise—[Interruption.] I hope the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of letting me answer his point. Such questions arise only when there is a recommendation from the Accounts Commission; but it goes without saying that if a local authority is faced with a personal tragedy, where the sums involved are very small, and it exercises its discretion not to seek payment of the account, I cannot conceive of any situation in which a Secretary of State would want to surcharge the councillors in question. I do not think that I can be more explicit than that in expressing my views.
The hon. Gentleman made comparisons with England and Wales. He tries very hard, but he knows perfectly well that the policies pursued by the Government apply to Scotland, England and Wales. Many Labour-controlled authorities in Wales appear to live with levels of expenditure not just marginally but dramatically—as much as £200 per capita—less than Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland. That cannot be explained on the basis of Government policy, which is consistent throughout the United Kingdom, although local authority expenditure is not consistent throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the statement is bitter news to thousands of carers—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh but this year those people are being driven from their original homes because they have chosen to move in with and look after disabled and elderly relatives, often leaving country dwellings for which the rates were under £100. They are now having to find up to £500 and £600 this year. Why does the Secretary of State not offer them more help now? By the time the statement comes into effect, they will have sold the original properties and will have no way back.

Mr. Rifkind: I would not be able to accuse the hon. Gentleman of humbug if he had put that proposition to Lothian regional council when it was contemplating applying the full multiplier with the full support of the hon. Gentleman and his Labour party colleagues.

Mr. John McAllion: If the Secretary of State thinks that 7 per cent. in Scotland is sufficient to cover the projected growth of inflation for next year, will he explain why it was necessary for his right hon. Friend to announce an 8·5 per cent. increase for England and Wales last week? Furthermore, will he explain why it is necessary to have a full-year transitional safety net to cushion the impact of the poll tax in England and Wales but not in Scotland? If he believes that the people of Scotland should remain part of a unitary United Kingdom, why does he persistently allow Scotland to be treated as an inferior, less deserving and less worthy part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rifkind: First, my right hon. Friend did not announce an 8·5 per cent. increase for England and Wales. Secondly, it is not only my view that 7 per cent. is sufficient; it is also the view of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman appears to be completely ignorant of the fact that there is a safety net in Scotland, which is applied in much the same way as that for England and Wales.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While most of us in the House recognise that the Secretary of State has shown an element of flexibility on the community charge, perhaps his end-of-term report card should be stamped, "Could do better". Why has he not produced clearer definitions of the sole or main residence for individuals? That is particularly important in rural constituencies, where people who live away from home for the purposes of work are being charged standard rate community charge in their digs while paying the personal community charge at the family home.
Secondly, in regard to poll tax accounts being issued to families of the recently deceased, will he advise the House what he regards as a small amount, as in my constituency, the sum has been as small as £1·34? Is it not the Government's responsibility to give clear guidance to our regional and islands authorities on the matter, because the reply that I received from his colleague the Minister of State, who was then responsible for the community charge, said that councils must take account of what the auditors say? If the auditors recommend that the poll tax on the recently deceased has to be collected, the councils are placed in a difficult position. It is therefore up to the Government to produce clear guidance stating that poll tax will not be charged for the month in which a person died.

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, I will give some thought to whether guidance to local authorities would be helpful, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that it can be only guidance and the local authority must take its own decisions in the light of the circumstances. Individual local authorities have already shown a willingness to use common sense and their discretion in this matter, showing that that is perfectly available to them if they choose to use it.
The hon. Lady also asked about sole or main residence, but she will appreciate that, in particular cases, that is primarily a matter for the community charge registration officer. Today I have said that local authorities will have much greater local discretion to deal with particular classes of situation, which may be a way in which to meet the point raised by the hon. Lady.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State said that the Government might be prepared to do something about the imposition of the poll tax on people suffering from conditions such as Alzheimer's disease if someone else can come up with some suitable suggestions. May I gently remind the Secretary of State that he is, whether anyone likes it or not, the government of Scotland? He is responsible for the poll tax and he is responsible for the unfair application of the tax on such people. I am sure that all of us welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the standard poll tax is unfair and unworkable, although we are now left with multiple discretion among local authorities and the Scottish Office, which could make things even worse. Does he accept that the basic iniquity still exists, because a family on a low income in a small house will still pay more than Her Majesty the Queen with a second home at Balmoral castle?

Mr. Rifkind: On Alzheimer's disease, may I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that those suffering from that disease were liable for the payment of domestic rates for many years without the hon. Gentleman feeling obliged to argue that that was iniquitous or undesirable. [Interruption.] No, they did not get exempted if they were the ratepayers of the property concerned. Many people with Alzheimer's disease were obliged to pay domestic rates for many years and the Labour party never seemed to think that that was a matter against which it should campaign. The Labour party could at least have the integrity not to suggest that, somehow, such payment has only now become an issue because of the introduction of the community charge. We shall continue to consider the possibility of a proper system of assessment being devised. If that happens, we will then be happy to respond, but until we are able to do so, obviously there is nothing that I can add.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the amount of money distributed to each local authority is the major factor in determining how high or low the poll tax is? Is he proposing to follow the example of the previous Secretary of State for the Environment by fixing the amount of the settlement in each case depending on the likely political fortunes of the Conservative party or is he prepared to treat each local authority in the same way? Is he aware that, had Lothian received the same safety-net arrangement as Strathclyde this year, the Lothian poll tax could have been between £60 and £80 lower than it is? Is he prepared to carry on rigging the figures in a desperate attempt to gain advantage in the regional elections next year in one of the few parts of the country where the Tories do not face an absolute rout?

Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman could not find anything to say on the statement and therefore he wants to broaden the exchanges that we are having. He will know that it is a tradition in Scotland that matters of distribution are dealt with later in the year, after consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He will also know that, usually, the formula that is applied for the distribution is agreed with COSLA.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be blissfully unaware of the fact that the subsidy of certain Scottish local authorities continued for many years with the acquiescence and indeed, enthusiasm, of the hon. Gentleman

and his hon. Friends. It is this Government who are, for the first time, eliminating that subsidy, but rather than doing it all at once we are phasing it out over several years. The hon. Gentleman was happy to live with a subsidy when there was one, but now complains because we are phasing it out and says that it should be phased out all at once. That shows that he changes his views as quickly as he changes his mind.

Mr. Tom Clarke: If the relationship between the Secretary of State and COSLA is as cosy as he seems to suggest why is it necessary for him to produce an obscure and selective comment from the Glasgow Herald to justify that assertion? Can he tell the House precisely what discussions he has had with COSLA and what it has said to him about his proposals? As part of that precision, when he talks about projections can he tell us the projected figure for inflation, because the House has not been told? What is the projected figure for wage settlements? We have not heard about that either. As the Secretary of State has referred to interest rates what projected figure does he have in mind for interest rates in respect of small businesses as well as local government? As we are anxious to hear what COSLA had to say, and as COSLA could not possibly have known about the Government's response to the Griffiths report, is there an extra ha'penny in the statement to recognise the new responsibilities for community care?

Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that certain of the preparatory work that may need to be done will be taken into account in the RSG settlement.
Our relationship with COSLA could never be as cosy as it was when the hon. Gentleman was its distinguished president, in the Government's early years. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's departure from his local government responsibilities has inevitably had its effect. He asked me what COSLA's representations were. When I last met COSLA, it suggested, not only to me but publicly, that the Government were going to give it a grant increase of only 1·7 per cent. It went on record as saying that it needed at least 7 per cent. if it was to meet the needs of its local authorities. That is exactly what it has got. The hon. Gentleman should be the first to welcome that.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's latter comments on Alzheimer's disease, I remind him, although he surely needs no reminding, that the difference is that the poll tax is a personal charge, which, according to the Government's rhetoric, is accompanied by accountability by local government to the individual. I unreservedly welcome the relief that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement will bring to those who care for the sick and elderly at home while the temporarily empty house is retained. The scandal is that it has taken three years of planning and four months of implementing the poll tax and will take another eight months of waiting for this cruelty to be addressed, under duress from the Opposition and local authorities.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the fundamental second home problem has still not been confronted by his statement because a district council will still be unable to differentiate between a second home single-end and a second home castle, and therein lies the endemic unfairness of the standard community charge?

Mr. Rifkind: The main reason why it has been necessary to respond in this way is that the local authorities throughout Scotland, with the honourable exceptions of Shetland Islands and Western Isles, have sought to impose the maximum standard charge, irrespective of the consequences to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If those local authorities had not done so, these problems would not have arisen. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that point.

Scottish Enterprise

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. Last December, I published the Scottish Enterprise White Paper on my proposals to integrate the functions of the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Training Agency in Scotland. I invited comments by 31 March 1989.
I have been delighted by the volume and constructiveness of the 420 responses and by the extent of support demonstrated. In reaching my decisions, I have sought to build on that support. There was overwhelming agreement for the principle of creating two new bodies, in which the functions of the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board would be integrated with those of the Training Agency in Scotland.
Many welcomed the name "Scottish Enterprise", but some called for the retention of the names "Scottish Development Agency" and "Highlands and Islands Development Board", and there was strong insistence from the north, whatever title was chosen, to retain the word "Islands". We are creating a distinctive new structure which will be more than the sum of its parts and which requires a new identity. I have therefore concluded that the new bodies should be called Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise respectively. The SDA and HIDB logos are widely recognised, and I see merit in retaining them to provide an element of continuity, but that will be for the new bodies to decide, as will the way that they market themselves abroad.
There was virtual unanimity for the proposition that the network of local agencies, or enterprise companies, as we now intend to call them, should have a contractual relationship with Scottish Enterprise, in keeping with their private sector focus. The constitution of the companies means that there are important issues of public accountability, propriety, control of public expenditure and value for money to resolve, and I have asked my officials to seek ways of ensuring that public funds are properly safeguarded.
In the light of comments received, I am now proposing a network of 12 companies in the lowlands and eight in the highlands and islands. I have made available a map showing the proposed areas for each company, but where consortia feel that the map that I am proposing does not fit in with their ideas, I should, of course, be willing to consider specific proposals for variation. As regards functions, I can confirm that the full range of statutory powers that the SDA and HIDB now possess will be available for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and I accept the recommendations that the latter should discharge the environmental role in the Highlands and Islands currently undertaken by the SDA.
I was impressed by the extent of support for devolving substantial powers relating to enterprise creation to the local enterprise companies from the outset, and against that background, my proposals now involve a major step in the direction of local delivery of economic as well as training functions from the start. We shall, of course, continue the SDA and HIDB policies of withdrawing in favour of private sector provision wherever that is practicable and sensible.
I found it a great attraction as an initial step in the SDA's approach that the enteprise companies should operate within spending limits that would enable them to take responsibility for the great majority of projects, and that responsibility for major projects outside those limits should he retained at the centre. I intend to apply that principle to both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I intend also that the extent of delegation to local enterprise companies should be increased progressively.
The central bodies will have a strong strategic role and will therefore set the policy framework and monitor the local companies; design, develop and secure the implementation of projects and programmes, particularly in industry and enterprise development with an applicability across their areas; approve major projects that fall out with the companies' competence; and handle certain functional activities including major investments, inward investment attracted by Locate in Scotland, marketing and the design and implementation of major physical programmes. They will ensure that the Government's Great Britain-wide training policies and priorities are pursued and Government guarantees fully satisfied. They will also ensure that programmes in support of enterprise delivered on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry are being satisfactorily discharged and provide central support services.
Local enterprise companies will have the following functions, depending on their capability and the spending limits agreed. In the Scottish Enteprise area, large and strategic projects apart, they will have SDA functions in respect of the development of property, land reclamation and environmental improvement projects, advice and assistance to business, and urban renewal. In the highlands and islands area, the same approach will apply to the range of HIDB functions. In both areas they will carry out the range of training functions presently delivered by the Training Agency's area offices and seek to stimulate greater involvement by employers in training. They will also have the scope to devise specific initiatives to meet local needs.
There will be differences in approach between the Scottish Enterprise area and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area, reflecting their different population, geographical and other characteristics, but there will be an underlying consistency. I have asked officials to work up proposals to ensure that there is a clear framework within which the local enterprise companies are to operate, and that the companies have maximum flexibility, compatible with public accountability, to tailor their activities to local circumstances.
In the light of the comments received on two of the programmes at the interface between industry and education, I have concluded that the Training Agency's technical and vocational education initiative—TVEI—should now move to the Industry Department for Scotland and that PICKUP, the professional, industrial and commercial updating programme administered by the Scottish Education Department, should transfer to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
The resources for the new bodies will initially be broadly those that would have been made available in total to the SDA, HIDB and the Training Agency in Scotland.
Turning now to management, many have suggested that an increase to 12 for the Scottish Enterprise board would offer considerably more scope, while retaining the

efficiency advantages of a compact board. I propose a board of not less than nine and not more than 12 members inclusive of the chairman and the chief executive, who will be an ex officio member. I propose a similar approach to Highlands and Islands Enterprise but, in recognition of the fact that the number of those able to serve will be circumscribed by distance and sparsity of population, I propose a 7:12 formulation. There is broad support for our proposals that two thirds of the board should be drawn from the private sector and members of both boards will be chosen on a personal basis, for the contribution that each can make. We need the best people in their own right.
With regard to the boards of the local enterprise companies, we shall wish to see directors chosen for their individual contribution, reflecting the range of local interests. Two thirds will come from the private sector, and there will be a board of not fewer than nine or more than 12 in the Scottish Enterprise area and between seven and 12 in the Highlands and Islands.
However, the bigger the range of local interest that supports the company the better. I have been pleased by the enthusiasm expressed by the local authority sector, by education and training specialists, the voluntary sector and the trade unions for the objectives of Scottish Enterprise and their desire to be involved.
As regards staffing, it is important that staff are given a clear indication about their future. There are three aims to be fulfilled: Scottish Enterprise should have a single ethos and staffing structure, as should Highlands and Islands Enterprise; local enterprise companies should have as much freedom as possible to choose their own staff; and the arrangements should meet the best interests of existing staff.
I therefore propose that every member of staff employed by the Scottish Development Agency should be offered, three months before the establishment of Scottish Enterprise, employment on no worse terms with Scottish Enterprise, with scope for voluntary secondment to an enterprise company. I propose a similar approach for HIDB staff, As regards the training agency, every member of staff employed in Scotland should be offered, three months before the establishment of the new bodies, the choice either of employment on no worse terms with Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise as appropriate, with scope for voluntary secondment to an enterprise company, or alternatively of secondment to Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise, with up to three years to decide whether to transfer on the same basis permanently or to return to Civil Service. I am sure that the local enterprise companies will recognise the value of taking most of their staff on secondment terms from the skilled and experienced pool of existing staff, but they will also have scope to employ their own staff.
Finally, let me say how I now see the way ahead. I shall seek an early opportunity for legislation to bring Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise into being as soon as possible. As there is overwhelming enthusiasm for our suggestion that it might be possible to go ahead with some local enterprise companies in advance of legislation, within the next few weeks I shall be launching a prospectus which will invite the business community to form consortia to bid to become local enterprise companies in lowland Scotland. That will be followed by a prospectus for the highlands and islands. The companies will operate within existing legislative


powers and within existing public expenditure provision. The number of consortia to be given the go-ahead at this time will depend upon the quality of bids. Consortia throughout Scotland are already making plans in the hope that the Government will take this approach. Their commitment has been a major factor in confirming to me the fact that our proposals for Scottish Enterprise are soundly based.
It gives me great pleasure to commend to the House these proposals, which have caught the imagination of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Donald Dewar: That statement might be described as hard going; it reminded me of stirring very thick porridge. The rather natty, glossy brochure containing the Secretary of State's statement also contains a photograph of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with the legend "The way ahead is clear". He could have fooled all of us this afternoon.
I accept that the statement contains important issues and deals with a part of our economy in which there is no doubt about the scope for improved performance. But as the Minister knows, Opposition Members have doubts about the structure of Scottish Enterprise and the decision to merge training and the key role of the SDA in one body.
Let me make it clear to the House that those doubts remain, but there is some evidence in the Minister's statement—if one reads it carefully—that he has listened, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that. We will, however, want to be satisfied that the role of Scottish Enterprise will not blur or blunt the enterprise and investment role pioneered by the SDA in recent years. If the Government press ahead, it will be important to ensure that the enterprise companies are a success and bring about the revolution in training that is so clearly needed. We should certainly want to see that achieved.
It is right that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has agreed that Highlands and Islands Enterprise should be created on the lines outlined and that the environmental role should be transferred to it from the SDA.
I welcome the guarantees given to the staff who, I suspect, will nevertheless face an uncertain period in the months ahead.
I have one or two specific questions. The new boards are to be based on private sector involvement, and I note the Secretary of State's statement that there is "broad support" for that principle. I suspect that that is largely confined to the private sector itself. We now know that two thirds of the board directors are to come from private industry. Does the Secretary of State accept that there is real and understandable concern about the involvement of other interests? Does he accept that there is a genuine role both for local authorities and for trade unions? I note that there were some nods in that direction in his statement, but will he undertake that the participation of those other sectors will be a key factor in deciding on the suitability of a bid?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman note in passing the distinction between local authority involvement as such and simply the recruitment of a local authority figure to give colour to a board? Will board members be salaried, as recommended by the SDA in its representations? Will he also say more about the realities of the power structure? We understand that Scottish

Enterprise will monitor the activities of the enterprise companies locally. Will they be allowed to take over the assets and investments of the SDA and Scottish Enterprise, as it will become, as the consortium bidding for the Lanarkshire franchise has requested?
I understand that there will be a delegation of projects to the enterprise companies below a certain cut-off point. What will that be? Will it be roughly along the lines presently operated for the regional bodies of the SDA? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also comment on the level of independence in policy making that will he given to Scottish Enterprise?
In defining the new body's duties, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it will
ensure that the Government's Great Britain-wide training policies and priorities are pursued and Government guarantees fully satisfied".
Does that mean that the Department of Employment, as the lead body, will lay down all training policy? Will the local enterprise companies—I believe that this is very important—be able to tailor employment training and YTS to local needs? Without that flexibility, many people will think that all the talk about the practical devolution of power is no more than a sham.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the remit of the national training task force and how it impacts on Scottish Enterprise, reporting, as it does, to the Department of Employment? Will he accept that the test will be what is delivered? We strongly support a Scottish solution to training policy, but we are not convinced that the independence of action that is required has been wrested from the Department of Employment by those plans. There must also be a willingness to fund innovation and local initiatives. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that the present standstill budget, simply amalgamating the existing budgets, can do the job?

Mr. Rifkind: If my statement was a hard slog, the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was a forced march. Nevertheless, I welcome the generally constructive tone of the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I will respond to his points.
I am happy to confirm that we see a genuine role for local authorities and trade unions; I referred to that specifically in my statement. We hope in the generality that salaries would not be required by the members of the boards in question, but there may be particular circumstances in which some flexibility would be appropriate, and we will consider them on their merits.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked whether the enterprise companies would own the assets currently owned by the SDA in their localities. We certainly envisage that they will be able to have effective control of those assets. Whether the legal ownership should transfer to them is a more difficult matter, which we are considering at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would be the cut-off point for delegation to the local enterprise companies. I can confirm that that would be broadly compatible with the existing delegation that the SDA gives its regional offices. He asked whether the Department of Employment would be laying down policy on national training. The Government will lay down the policy and the Department of Employment and the Scottish Office will together determine the national framework of training policy. The national task force, to which the hon. Gentleman referred,


answers both to the Department of Employment and to the Scottish Office in its advisory role. We certainly envisage that the local enterprise companies should have a significant flexibility and autonomy within their frameworks.
It would appear that the only major difference remaining between the Opposition and the Government is over the fundamental question as to whether the SDA and the Training Agency should be merged into a single body. The hon. Gentleman said that he has doubts about that structure and he said today, as he has said on a previous occasion, that the Labour party would prefer two free-standing bodies in Scotland instead of a single agency. He is in very lonely company in respect of that view.
The House might like to know that 297 respondents to the White Paper favoured a combination of the SDA and the Training Agency into a single agency and only 17, including the Labour party, expressed the view which the hon. Member for Garscadden has professed today. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will agree that, although he is entitled to his view, it is not shared by Scotland. The overwhelming response from right across the industrial, political and economic spectrum in Scotland supports the Government's proposition and disagrees with the view that was expressed on behalf of the Labour party.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) found it difficult to criticise his first statement and finds it impossible to criticise his second? I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on spelling out in detail the Scottish Enterprise proposals which will be warmly welcomed in Scotland. What does he envisage as the role of enterprise trusts? There is considerable scope for enterprise trusts to continue their excellent work under Scottish Enterprise. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say how they will work?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I certainly see a continuing role for enterprise trusts. As my hon. Friend will be aware, they essentially deal with much smaller localities, rather than the larger geographical areas that are covered by enterprise companies. I have no doubt that the enterprise trusts, as they have already publicly said, will wish to be involved in encouraging local consortia to come forward, and be involved in other ways in continuing to stimulate the local economy in the constructive way that they have already demonstrated.

Mr. Tom Clarke: May I ask a constituency question first? As it is not clear what local enterprise companies Strathkelvin district council may be associated with, will the Secretary of State clarify the matter? Secondly, as the Secretary of State referred to the halcyon days when he arrived at St. Andrew's house as a young Minister, pro-devolution and all the rest, he might recall that, at about that time, there was a committee called the Stodart committee, of which I was a member. Based on the evidence that it received, it strongly supported the role of local government in industrial promotion and enterprise.
Has the Secretary of State received any evidence to the contrary? Does he accept that many local authorities in Scotland, including Monklands district council, feel that they have a contribution to make, that the Government are deliberately ostracising that contribution, that that is

not in the interests of Scottish Enterprise or Scottish industry, and that the Stodart committee could have told the Government so?

Mr. Rifkind: On the two points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, first, Strathkelvin district council would come under the proposed Dumbarton enterprise company, and that is made clear on the map that is available to hon. Members. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, his comment is not fair. He will recall that, in the allocations that we gave local authorities for the current year, there was a particularly generous increase in the general services allocation for the purposes of industrial workshops in their areas. If that was not a recognition of the contribution that can be made in matters referring to the local economy, it is difficult to know what would be.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement for the very constructive and full way in which he has responded to the representations that he has received. Will he say a little more about training? Does he acknowledge that there is not only a shortage of skills but a need for new skills in Scotland and that, in the midst of all the new business enterprise, the importance of training should be given a high priority? Is my right hon. and learned Friend getting a constructive response from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Trades Union Congress for his efforts?

Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, training is important. There are clear signs from the STUC and from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that, despite their original proposals to boycott the new training scheme that was introduced by the Government, they will seek to become involved in the enterprise companies, in the knowledge that that will involve co-operation in the delivery of training on the basis of the Government's current training policy. I welcome what appears to be a change of heart in that respect.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that both his statements have been incredibly long-winded? It appears that he has a future as a speaking clock, because the enormity of the statements was barely concealed by the rapidity of his delivery.
I ask two questions. First, on the availability of business men to serve on the boards that are to be established, is he satisfied that there are enough competent people to go around and to make them work properly? Secondly, on Highlands and Islands Enterprise, is he satisfied that the differential that can now be provided is sufficient to make the area genuinely attractive to industry?

Mr. Rifkind: The speaking clock is universally recognised as both accurate and of great public benefit, so I am happy to be compared with it, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to do so.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's detailed questions, the original concern or scepticism of some people about whether the business community would come forward has been completely overtaken by the evidence now available to us. Even in anticipation of the statement, consortia throughout Scotland were already being formed with a view to coming forward as soon as the Government invite them to do so. That is extremely encouraging. The new


opportunities available in the highlands and islands where, for the first time, training will be controlled locally by the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and local enterprise companies, are a dramatic change in the opportunity for the north of Scotland to control its own destiny.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his excellent statement this afternoon, even if it was a little complicated and long for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) to understand before he fell asleep? Will he note that the new Perthshire enterprise venture set up with such enthusiasm in a partnership between private and public enterprise is an example of what his policies are achieving? Will he remind the House again this afternoon, and unceasingly, that these excellent advantages can be maintained only if we do not drive away investment—from wherever it comes—by having an Assembly, separation or differential taxation?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly congratulate the Perthshire venture. It is an excellent example of the local business community and others coming together to help the local economy, and it is to be welcomed. My hon. and learned Friend's remarks are also correct. Clearly, anything that discourages investment is to be deplored and my earlier statement today on business rates will be another way in which the potential disincentive of higher taxation will be removed, to the benefit of our economy.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Exactly what will happen to the Dundee project, which is the only example in Scotland of a one-door approach to incoming industry within this new framework? It would be an absolute disaster if the project were simply absorbed into Tayside. How many of the 297 responses to the White Paper did not suggest that an emphasis different from the national emphasis on training was needed in Scotland, particularly given the experience of the previous mode B young people who find it extremely difficult to stay in training employment as it is presently structured?

Mr. Rifkind: I, too, am happy to acknowledge the great importance of the Dundee project. I sought to make it clear in my opening remarks that, apart from the matters delegated to individual enterprise companies, certain projects would continue to be dealt with by Scottish Enterprise, either because of their national significance or because of the size of the resources involved or the scale of the project. We shall consider existing projects and decide which should be in that category. Dundee may be one, but I should not like to come to a conclusion on that without studying the scale of the resources involved and other matters.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the 297 representations on the White Paper were about the basic question whether the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency should combine into a single agency. Two hundred and ninety-seven said that they should, and 17 said that they should not.

Mr. Adam Ingram: The Secretary of State said that his announcement would catch the imagination of the people of Scotland, but that will not be the case in the new towns in Scotland. Two weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced his intentions about the

future of the new towns. It will be a matter of some concern in the new towns that no mention was made today of the relationship or the role of the new towns in these new enterprise agencies. Will the Secretary of State explain how the new towns will interface with the new enterprise agencies? Which body will have responsibility for the on-going development of the new towns prior to the dissolution of the development corporation boards?

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that the proposals have not caught the imagination of the people in the new towns, because as far as I am aware they have been welcomed there as well. With regard to the precise implications—[Interruption.] I am talking about the responses to the White Paper. On the precise implications, the new towns and their successor local development companies may seek to join a local enterprise company as participants in a consortium, or may act as sub-contractors to local enterprise companies to provide specific local economic development services or, at the instance of Locate in Scotland, they may contract with Scottish Enterprise direct to provide sites for inward investment. Therefore, there are equally exciting and important opportunities for the new towns as well as for the rest of Scotland.

Mr. Mike Watson: Does it not make a mockery of the so-called consultation process when, as the Secretary of State has said, after several hundred responses, it is clear that many of them have been ignored, and when he confirms that the boards of the local enterprise companies—as we hear they will now be called—are to comprise two thirds private sector nominees? Is it not far more important that the recommendations that were made in many of the responses to the consultation process, calling for local authorities, trade unions and the voluntary sector to be involved, should have been taken on board, and should that not happen before a Bill is brought to the House? I noticed that the Secretary of State referred to the general role of trade unions and local authorities, but will he spell out what that will mean, because I fear that that role will be woefully inadequate?

Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There has been a wide welcome for the principle that local enterprise companies should have boards with two thirds of the members drawn from the private sector. That has not been a matter of controversy. The overwhelming number of representations received has supported that view. There has also been the view, which the Government have also accepted, that local authorities have a legitimate role to play in the enterprise companies. My statement acknowledged that point. I expect that, when consortia approach Scottish Enterprise in most of Scotland, they will come primarily from the private sector, but I shall be surprised if they do not also include local authorities, the voluntary sector and possibly trade unions and others.

Mr. William McKelvey: Will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that the mangement boards are not loaded in the same fashion as the health boards in Scotland have been loaded with Conservative or former Conservative supporters? Will he guarantee that a maximum will be set so that only two thirds of the management boards will be drawn from the private sector? I hope that the members of the


management boards who are drawn from the private sector will he Scottish business men who live and work in Scotland.
On the point about the area enterprise boards overseeing certain projects, what would the Secretary of State consider to be a large project that would not necessarily be in their domain? Can he guarantee—I should welcome the formation of the enterprise areas a little less cautiously if he could do this—that the Cinderellas who have suffered under the redistribution of SDA grants and moneys before, such as Kilmarnock, will no longer fail to receive their fair share of the budget that is available centrally?
There should be two separate training bodies. One reason why we want a separate body for training is to ensure that training is properly carried out and, most importantly, that the business men who so anxiously want to manage these enterprises have the opportunity to play their part in what should be proper training. Furthermore, those who are training should be paid the appropriate trade union rates.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that industry should be prepared to make its contribution to the cost of training. That is something that one hopes that industry will acknowledge and to which it will respond. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the membership of the boards of the enterprise companies, I agree that what we are looking for are senior figures from Scottish industry who will he able to make a major contribution to the work of the enterprise companies in their locality.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an example of a project which, despite its local impact, might be considered more suitable to be retained for central control. The Glasgow garden festival is an example. If the festival had been coming into existence under the future structure, although its impact was intended to be within Glasgow, the scale of the project would have justified its being dealt with by Scottish Enterprise rather than by individual enterprise companies. We shall have to consider individual projects and determine that issue on the basis of such criteria.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Yes, but why has the Secretary of State maintained the two-thirds business majority on the boards against calls for a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors, especially when those calls have come not just from every Opposition party but also from the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. and from Mr. Ron Lander, the chairman of the CBI's training committee in Scotland? Does not the fact that the Secretary of State has maintained the two-thirds majority betray the political bias behind the plans and show that they are a Tory solution to Tory needs rather than a Scottish solution to Scottish needs?
Why did the statement make no mention of the European dimension? Is it not the case that the Department of Employment processes applications for the European social fund, which is a major provider of training funding? Why has that role not been delegated to the Scottish Office or Scottish Enterprise? In the light of the Secretary of State's earlier remarks about the relative positions of the Scottish Office and the Department of Employment in relation to training, does he not remember

that the White Paper announcing these proposals described the Department of Employment as the lead Department in these matters? Has anything changed?

Mr. Rifkind: It was described as the lead Department because it is the lead Department. There has never been any secret of that fact. It would be odd if it were not the lead Department, given that it covers such a large proportion of the population of the Unied Kingdom. This is not the occasion to have a debate on European matters, but I believe that my statement is free-standing in its own right.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's initial points, I advise him that he should study the representations before he makes a slight fool of himself——

Mr. Salmond: I have the submissions here.

Mr. Rifkind: In that case, the hon. Gentleman has even less excuse for the questions that he has asked—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, but the two-thirds private sector ratio has been widely accepted right across the spectrum of opinion. What people were quite properly——

Mr. Salmond: What about Mr. Ron Lander?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman refers to one individual, as if one individual out of 420 should determine the course of the Government's response——

Mr. Salmond: Mr. Lander is the chairman of the CBI's education and training committee.

Mr. Rifkind: Well, the CBI strongly supports what is in the White Paper. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has identified one individual who takes a different view shows the paucity of his case. The balance that the Government are proposing in the White Paper has been welcomed right across the political and industrial spectrum. The hon. Gentleman may not like that, but I am afraid that he will have to live with it.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), and will he undertake to write to the chief executives or the chairman of the Scottish new town development corporations setting out in some detail the precise relationship between what is proposed and the existing development corporations? Could he then go a little further and deal with the question of the new development companies so that there is absolutely no doubt about the role of the new towns in the new context?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, we will happily give such advice to the new town development corporations. The answer that I gave the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) related both to the existing new town development corporations and to the future local enterprise companies. We shall happily discuss the matter with the new towns so that there is a clarity of understanding about this matter.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: If I followed the Secretary of State's statement correctly, he suggested that, as well as its training function, Highlands and Islands Enterprise will take on the environmental function from the SDA. Will he give an absolute guarantee that it will have a requisite increase in its finances for both those functions, so that its prime and legislative


development role is not undermined or diluted as a result of the greater range of activity that it will have to undertake?
Secondly, I stress to the Secretary of State that at the weekend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), in anticipation of this week's statement, met representatives of the CBI in the highlands and islands of Scotland. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that it was a perfectly open meeting. Those representatives of the CBI were exactly the kind of business men to whom the Secretary of State will be looking to make this a success. One issue about which they were anxious was whether this would lead to a diminution in the almost unique status of the existing HIDB within Scotland, as it is brought more on a par with Scottish Enterprise generally, and whether the potential is there for this to be a long-term disincentive or disadvantage for the highlands and islands as a whole. Will the Secretary of State address himself to that, too?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. We have said that the initial funding of both the new agencies would correspond to the funding that currently goes to the various bodies that deal with those matters. In the case of the highlands and islands, if one combines, for example, the existing funding of the HIDB with that of the Training Agency in Scotland, we are talking of funding of about £50 million. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the environmental aspect. We essentially wish to start from the position of replicating the existing funding in the highlands, wherever it comes from, and that will go to Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I believe that he can be greatly reassured, because, far from being to the disadvantage of the highlands and islands, we are saying that major areas of policy and resources, which up to now have been carried out within the highlands from outside, will in future be determined within the highlands and islands themselves. For the first time, Highlands and Islands Enterprise will have many millions of pounds to spend on training in the highlands and islands—training which up to now has been run from Sheffield. That will now be with the local enterprise companies. There is the point, too, about the environmental functions of the SDA now being controlled from Inverness rather than from Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can properly recognise what is being proposed as an exciting and substantial decentralisation of power to the highlands and islands.

Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State has tried hard to give the impression this afternoon of an entirely Scottish approach to the important area of training. Will he tell us whether the Department of Employment will continue to have a remit for training provision in Scotland, and, especially, whether the pilot schemes for the workfare-type jobs interview guarantee scheme will continue to go ahead under the Department of Employment, or whether it will be transferred to Scottish Enterprise? In any case, whoever has responsibility, will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be comprehensive consultation with the local communities before implementation of that scheme?

Mr. Rifkind: There will be relatively few residual functions of the Department of Employment in Scotland,

but, overwhelmingly, its current responsibilities are being transferred, with the appropriate resources, to the Scottish Office. There will be a continuing joint responsibility for national training standards in the United Kingdom as a whole, where both Departments will liaise in order to identify Government policy. Within that national framework, we accept that, both at Scottish level and in the various parts of Scotland, there will be substantial flexibility and local autonomy that has not existed up to now and will be a major feature of future arrangements.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Secretary of State understand that these are very wide powers, which have been given to a very small number of people, drawn from a very narrow band of Scottish society, over a wide area of Scottish society and highly unrepresentative of Scottish society? That in itself requires the most extensive debate. The Secretary of State mentioned public accountability, but to whom will those local enterprise companies be publicly accountable? Will it be the local authority or the Scottish Office and, through the Scottish Office, the House? The Secretary of State did not mention Locate in Scotland, possibly because nothing is happening in relation to it. I would be grateful if he could confirm that. Finally, if legislation is required—when?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order. My statement said that I envisaged early legislation to create Scottish Enterprise. However, even in advance of that legislation, much will be able to be achieved under the existing statutory position.
I am happy to confirm that Locate in Scotland is not affected in any way by the statement. Enterprise companies will be accountable to Scottish Enterprise in the first instance and, through Scottish Enterprise, to the Scottish Office and thereby to Parliament as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman said that those powers will be used by unrepresentative individuals. I ask him to compare what we propose with the existing situation and to see which he prefers. At the moment, the training powers are carried out by people answerable to the Training Agency's headquarters in Sheffield, while the SDA powers are exercised by officials of the SDA in the localities in question and are rarely considered in any depth by SDA headquarters. Compared with the status quo arrangements, a local enterprise company, which consists both of the private sector, and I am sure of local authorities and other local interests, will be considerably more representative and able to identify the needs of the local community than the existing arrangements, which, of course, have existed for a good many years.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that one of the intriguing aspects of discussing this initially with Bill Hughes was the fact that he suggested that money should be taken down to the local level? What appears to be happening is that we are creating multifarious bureaucracies. The real danger is that money, especially for training, will not get down to local level. How does he propose to devise a mechanism to obviate that?
Will the Secretary of State give us some indication of how those local companies will be registered? Will they be companies registered by guarantee, and will we, additionally, have an annual report on Scottish Enterprise and on Highlands and Islands Enterprise, too, so that we


might have an opportunity of discussing those matters, appropriately in Scotland? One thing that we should keep an eye on and ventilate in Scotland is this proposed set-up.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to pay credit to Mr. Hughes for the stimulation that he, as well as others, gave to these ideas. These proposals represent a massive transfer of resources to the local level. At the moment, the effective decision on training are taken in Sheffield and those on the functions of the SDA in Glasgow. We are proposing a contractual relationship with enterprise companies, which have been brought out by the local communities, where they will not be carrying out simply a policy laid down by Government as agents. We would clearly not attract people of calibre to carry out someone else's policy. They will be given real decision-making powers in important areas, which is why the business sector and others have already responded so enthusiastically to what is proposed. I agree that those matters should be debated and discussed, for which there will be many opportunities. What is encouraging is that the public response to the White Paper has given rise not only to so many comments from so many quarters, but such a unanimous endorsement of what is proposed.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: When does the Secretary of State expect Scottish Enterprise to achieve a reduction in Scottish unemployment to the level which existed at the time when the Scottish Development Agency was set up by the last Labour Government?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, after the SDA was set up by the last Labour Government, unemployment—no doubt for other reasons—substantially increased during the remaining period of that Labour Government. It increased further during the early years of this Government, but I am pleased to say that it has been dramatically falling over the past two years and looks set to continue to fall. The Scottish CBI's latest survey shows substantial optimism in Scottish industry. No doubt that is because of a clear realisation that the hon. Gentleman is unlikely to be sitting on this side of the House in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Scotland has a unique history of skill training—that, certainly during the industrial revolution and afterwards, Scotland led the world in its level of skill training. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that this new training arrangement will allow training to be conducted in such a manner that, if one wished, one could extend the training period to three years or more to give the opportunities for the levels of skills that are required to meet the needs of the future?

Mr. Rifkind: We certainly envisage that, increasingly, Government requirements will not be expressed so much in terms of the procedure and the detailed way in which training is delivered, as in terms of output and the results. If we are satisfied that enterprise companies are producing the results, the out-turn and the quality of training that is required, we shall be happy for them to have a significant flexibility and autonomy as to how they do that throughout Scotland.

Points of Order

Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have received any requests from Ministers to make a statement on the salmonella outbreak in Clwyd? There is considerable anxiety on Deeside and throughout that county. I believe that, before the end of the day, a statement should he made on this serious outbreak. We need to know whether the outbreak has affected 48 people in Clwyd, whether there are 13 hospital cases, whether there is a seriously ill pensioner and whether children are affected—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order is to me and to ask whether I have received a request for a statement. The hon. Member should not go into detail. I must tell him that I have not had such a request.

Mr. Jones: I was about to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is widespread anxiety in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. We want to know whether there are enough environmental health officers to assist locate the seat of the outbreak. We urgently want to know from Ministers what the Government are doing so that public anxiety can be allayed. Can you help to establish whether a Minister from the Welsh Office will come to the Chamber and make a statement about this serious outbreak of salmonella? Public opinion demands that that information be given.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat that I have not had any request for such a statement. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard on the Government Front Bench. We never know what might happen tomorrow.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Secretary of State for Health during Question Time yesterday make some insulting remarks that implied that my constituents are not fit to vote on whether they want hospitals to opt out of the National Health Service. Would you examine the record, Mr. Speaker, and consider asking the Secretary of State for Health to withdraw those deeply offensive remarks?

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Lady that I was here and I did not hear any offensive remarks. In any case, the time to raise a point of order on a matter like that is when it occurred, not now. I cannot go back to it today.

Mrs. Mahon: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker: No—I am sorry, the hon. Lady's argument is not with me. She will have to find other ways to take it up.

Mrs. Mahon: Further—

Mr. Speaker: No. I cannot hear it.

BILLS PRESENTED

NUTRITIONAL LABELLING OF FOOD

Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Ms. Diane Abbott, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Andrew Smith and Mr. Peter L. Pike, presented a Bill to ensure that the consumer is provided with full and accurate information


on the nutritional content of food: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

ANTI-LITTER (RING-PULL CANS)

Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Ms. Diane Abbott, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Andrew Smith and Mr. Peter L. Pike, presented a Bill to require the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of ring-pull cans to ensure that the ring-pull cannot be detached when the can is opened: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Industrial Disputes (Compulsory Arbitration Procedures)

Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to compel parties providing essential services and involved in industrial disputes to seek arbitration.
The aims of this Bill are best attained by preventing those who are engaged in providing essential services from undertaking strike action, either on a full-time or part-time basis, while recourse to existing arbitration or tribunal procedures remain available to the parties to the dispute. This is certainly not a bash-the-unions exercise, but it is very much a protect-the-public measure.
We have come a long way since the days of Red Robbo and Jack Dash—the days of "I'm all right Jack"—and of scenes in factory car parks which involved a brief speech, a forest of hands in the air, and an immediate walk-out. Few doubt that such antics played a significant role in Britain's relative decline as an industrial power in the 1960s and 1970s. They certainly played a large part in the perceptions that many foreigners—including potential investors—formed of Britain's economic performance.
Few people would want those dark days to return. Even fewer would agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said on June 19 this year:
The Trade Union was born in illegality and it will be re-born in illegality".
At present, some groups, such as members of the police forces and the armed forces have no right to strike. Also, doctors, dentists and nurses have their pay settled by review bodies, although there must be some concern about the inflationary aspects of some of the awards.
I was encouraged by the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr. Bendall), who is in his place, last Thursday. She said:
We are looking at the possibility of further legislation and examining European legislation which usually includes some protection against unions in the public sector going on strike. European legislation and history tend to be very different from ours, but we are looking at it all to see whether we can learn something from it. … With due respect, I do not think that it would make much difference to have only one union. It is much more complicated than that, but I hope to bring forward in the future any proposals that we may have."—[Official Report, 20 July 1989; Vol. 157, c. 514.]
I am quite sure that any such proposals will be positive and realistic and will build on the substantial trade union reforms over the past decade, which have met with the approval of the vast majority of the British electorate. One effect of these proposals is that strike action is legal only after a democratic ballot. It logically follows that, where trade union members have authorised strike action, there is greater legitimacy for them to do so.
I suggest that it is for the employers and the unions to decide whether they want to accept the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, either as an arbitrator or as a conciliator, and whether to accept pendulum arbitration or no-strike deals.
There has been much comment recently on the negotiation of no-strike deals, which typically involve single union deals, such as that between the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union and Japanese new technology companies, often on new green-field sites. The agreements prohibit industrial action


while the disputes procedure is being followed. If the agreed procedures fail to resolve the dispute, an independent arbitrator, sometimes ACAS, either must or may be called upon to make a final decision.
Some agreements specify the use of pendulum arbitration, whereby the arbitrator must choose between the employer's offer and the union's demand rather than strike a compromise between the two.
any industrial relations experts point out that there is not much difference between a no-strike agreement and the type of collective agreements involving peace clauses and provision for arbitration which have been negotiated in many industries in the past.
Perhaps the present situation is best summarised by a recent article on single-union deals in the Industrial Relations Review and Report dated 27 June 1989. It said:
There is nothing new about peace clauses or disputes procedures which set out the steps through which disputes and grievances must proceed".
It continued by analysing the 1984 workplace industrial relations survey and found that nearly 80 per cent. of unionised workplaces had such arrangements. In many cases, these arrangements are specifically referred to as procedures for the avoidance of disputes.
It is difficult to see why the public should be inconvenienced where these procedures are adopted. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said in a television interview on 11 December 1974:
naturally the trade unions see their clearest loyalty to their own members but the social contract is their free acknowledgement that they have other loyalties to the members of other unions, to pensioners, to the lower paid, to invalids and to the community as a whole".
It is interesting that loyalty to the community as a whole came last. The convenience and needs of the public always seem to come last during industrial disputes. I suggest that it is the duty of the House to ensure that the needs of the public come not last, but first in order of priority.
Like other hon. Members, I have recently received a letter from the secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen that stated, in its second paragraph:
I am only too well aware of the considerable inconvenience caused to the travelling public by the current industrial problems so let me begin by emphasising once again that the NUR is anxious to achieve the earliest settlement of the dispute".
Later in the same letter comes the statement:
We have consistently argued that ACAS is the necessary and appropriate forum for such negotiations".
What that letter does not, and cannot, explain is why it is necessary to have a strike, such as the one today, while both the tribunal and ACAS procedures are still available to the parties concerned. As my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State observed on 30 June:
Use the established procedures if you are so keen for a settlement—start talking and now. The British public is waiting.
I am well aware that other countries have different approaches to these problems. As Mr. Philip Bassett observed in the Financial Times as long ago as 2 January 1986:
In West Germany … it is illegal not only to break an agreement, but also to encourage others to do so. In the US, all agreements are legally enforceable and most contain elaborate grievance procedures and no-strike peace clauses. In France agreements are enforceable as civil contracts.
Until major legislation is introduced—that was mentioned in our 1983 manifesto—and until our position on those major issues is made clear, we surely cannot continue to allow the public to be blackmailed. The man

or woman on the tube, on the railway or, quite literally, on the Clapham omnibus, should not face strike action until all procedures to avoid such strikes have been exhausted. Some 80 per cent. of unionised workplaces already have peace clauses for disputes procedures. The very least we should ensure is that those engaged in providing essential public services should not strike before such procedures have been fully explored. It is the duty of this House to protect the public.

Mr. David Winnick: This is yet another attempt by Tory Back Benchers to restrict or take away the right of employees, especially those in the public sector, to take strike action. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) made no reference to the wages of those involved in today's dispute. Even alter an 8·8 per cent. increase, many railway workers would have a basic wage of £116 a week before tax. I note that the hon. Gentleman is a partner in a family firm of builders. He is a member of a Lloyd's underwriting syndicate. He is an associate partner in a firm of chartered surveyors. What income does he take home, and how does it compare with some of the railway workers who take home less than £100 a week, which often includes overtime?
No group of workers takes industrial action lightly, although I do not expect Tory Members to understand that. Some of my hon. Friends take the view that Tory Members are opposed to all forms of strikes. Perhaps that is a slight exaggeration, so I shall make the qualification that they are opposed to all forms of strike action—unless it happens to take place in eastern Europe.
The very powers that the hon. Gentleman advocates were, in fact, part of the emergency provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1971—a very discredited piece of Tory legislation. There was a dispute, as a matter of fact, on the railways in 1972 and strike action was to be taken. The then Secretary of State for Employment applied to the National Industrial Relations Court—we all remember that body—which granted a cooling-off period of 14 days. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is now advocating.
During those 14 days, the union complained that there was only minimal negotiation with the employers. The Government then ordered a postal ballot of all those eligible to take strike action. Some 85 per cent. of NUR members voted, and of those, 84 per cent. voted in favour of industrial action. The Government, realising that the game was up, authorised British Rail to go beyond the previous offer, and fresh negotiations soon resulted in a satisfactory settlement. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and whether he is aware of what happened in 1972. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that what he advocates has already been tried. It could not prevent strike action, and the Government recognised that a further offer was necessary.
The hon. Gentleman is keen on arbitration. Is he aware that there has been arbitration in the Civil Service since the 1920s? Since 1982, however, the Secretary of State has refused the Civil Service unions permission to go to arbitration, always arguing that, as there was no further money on offer, there was no purpose in arbitration.
In a democratic society, the employers and the unions should negotiate for the kind of agreement that they want. The hon. Gentleman referred to various existing


agreements, and that is fine, but it is surely for the employers and the trade unions, as part of the collective bargaining process, to agree on the procedures that they want, whether it be arbitration or something else. ACAS plays an important role, but that role would undoubtedly be discredited if compulsory arbitration was imposed. The current problems do not call for compulsory arbitration; they call for a recognition by the Government that many workers, including those in the constituencies of Tory Members, are deeply dissatisfied with what they take home. That is part of the reason for the large amount of industrial unrest at present, and more so because of the rising inflation rate.
It is no good dismissing those people as troublemakers and anarchists who want only to cause the public the maximum inconvenience. It is nothing of the kind. As I said earlier, no group of working people takes industrial action lightly, and certainly those employed on the railways have not done that. Strikes are part of the price that a society pays for remaining free and democratic—[Interruption.] Tory Members may jeer, but they should remember that in the Soviet Union and Poland, as those societies improve and reforms are undertaken, the working people have resorted to the strike weapon. The only way to end strikes is through a dictatorship. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin had their ways of dealing with industrial disputes, but in a democratic society people should have the right to take industrial action if they so wish.
What the hon. Gentleman advocates in his Bill, far from resolving industrial unrest, will only further aggravate it. It is all part and parcel of the determination of Tory Members to take away the right to strike action from workers in the public sector. We will oppose the Bill in the Lobby.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 109.

Division No. 322]
[5.17 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Alton, David
Dykes, Hugh


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David
Favell, Tony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fearn, Ronald


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hague, William


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cash, William
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hill, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cran, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)





Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shersby, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Speller, Tony


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Kennedy, Charles
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kilfedder, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stevens, Lewis


Kirkwood, Archy
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Latham, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Miller, Sir Hal
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Mills, Iain
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wallace, James


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Porter, David (Waveney)



Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Jacques Arnold and Mr. Malcolm Moss.


Ross, William (Londonderry E)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Haynes, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Heffer, Eric S.


Battle, John
Hinchliffe, David


Beckett, Margaret
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bell, Stuart
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Home Robertson, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hood, Jimmy


Bidwell, Sydney
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Caborn, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Callaghan, Jim
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Leighton, Ron


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lewis, Terry


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Litherland, Robert


Clelland, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
McGrady, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cousins, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mullin, Chris


Eadie, Alexander
Murphy, Paul


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Pike, Peter L.


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Radice, Giles


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Jo


Flynn, Paul
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rogers, Allan


Foster, Derek
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Fraser, John
Salmond, Alex


George, Bruce
Short, Clare


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sillars, Jim






Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Winnick, David


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Mr. Ian McCartney and Mr. Tony Banks.


Vaz, Keith



Wall, Pat

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Knapman, Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. William Cash, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Vivian Bendall, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Andrew Hargreaves and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (COMPULSORY ARBITRATION PROCURES)

Mr. Roger Knapman accordingly presented a Bill to compel parties providing essential services and involved in industrial disputes to seek arbitration; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 199].

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Press Association is reporting that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has been appointed a Government Whip. He is, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the director of Eversure Textiles Ltd. in Sheffield. The workers a t that plant have been on strike for the past five weeks, seeking trade union recognition, which has been refused by the management and the hon. Member for Hallam.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Madden: It is this. Can you tell the House whether, on appointment as a Government Whip, hon. Members are advised to relinquish directorships?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The Chair has an enormous number of responsibilities, but the appointment of Government Whips—or the notification of this by the Press Association—is not one of them. We should now proceed to motions Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order?

Mr. Madden: Yes. I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you go a little further? If it is not within the jurisdiction of the Chair to say whether the hon. Member for Hallam should relinquish his directorship, would you at least say, from your vast knowledge of these matters, that it would be a good idea for him to do so, as that would enable the management and the workers of the company to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to secure arbitration and a settlement of this unnecessary dispute?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Flattery about the Chair's responsibility will get the hon. Gentleman nowhere. I am not inclined to make any such statement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has any information gone to the Speaker's Office concerning the responsibilities of the Prime Minister, and what exactly they are? In the past 24 hours, our attention has been brought to the fact that she has started letting houses. I am not sure whether that comes within the general ambit of her responsibilities. Will' the Speaker look into this matter to see whether such a role comes under the powers of the First Lord of the Treasury?
I should also like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been given the right to purchase because he has done this before, and he had a big mortgage. I want to know whether this one will be bigger, and whether Lady Porter is involved.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman of one thing—whatever powers it comes under, it does not come under the powers of the Chair.

Social Security

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following motions:
That the draft Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.

Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, for reasons that he has explained to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), to be elsewhere at the moment, but he hopes to join us later. I hope that my hon. Friends, and the rest of the House, will give a warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), who has joined us in the Department as an Under-Secretary.
The three sets of regulations before the House have the common thread that they all relate to the provision of social security benefits. They do, however, relate to two distinct aspects of benefit provision which I intend to deal with separately. I shall take first the community charge benefits regulations and then come on to the two sets of regulations dealing with the provision of benefits for the unemployed.
The community charge benefits regulations are an integral part of the community charge arrangements. The scheme will ensure that the amount people have to pay will be related to their ability to pay it. People on low income will be able to claim rebates of up to 80 per cent. of their liability, and people on income support will be helped to pay the 20 per cent. of their liability that is not covered by the rebate through the adjustments that have been made to the income support rates. These regulations prescribe the details of how the community charge is to be rebated, and they will apply throughout Great Britain. During the current year, that is April till March 1990, community charge rebates in Scotland are being provided under separate regulations, which will cease to have effect in March next year, and will be replaced by the regulations that we are debating.
The community charge benefit scheme will be operated by levying authorities in Scotland and by charging authorities in England and Wales in accordance with the rules laid down in these regulations. The benefit may be claimed by anybody who is liable either for a personal community charge or for collective community charge contributions. The only people who will not be able to claim benefit will be full-time students who are registered as being liable for only 20 per cent. of the charge.
The maximum rebate will be 80 per cent. of the amount that a person has to pay. This will mean that all charge payers have to pay at least 20 per cent. of the charge in the same way that all ratepayers now have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. The Government hold firmly to the view that everybody should be as aware of the costs of local authority services as they are of the benefits. The maximum rebate will be available automatically to

everybody who is getting income support, and also to those people on equivalent incomes. We estimate that this 80 per cent. maximum rebate will be awarded to about 6 million people in Great Britain. We also estimate that a further 4 million to 5 million people in Great Britain will get a rebate on the community charge of less than the 80 per cent. maximum. For them, the amount of rebate they get will depend on three factors: their financial resources, their personal circumstances, and the amount of community charge that they have to pay.
The way in which rebate is calculated will follow closely the way in which rate rebate is calculated now. First, the capital resources of claimants will be considered, because we believe that if people have access to a significant amount of capital they should be expected to use it in meeting their necessary expenses. Then their net weekly income will be calculated, and personal circumstances taken into account, using the same applicable amounts, made up of personal allowances and premiums, as are now used in housing benefit. The applicable amount will be subtracted from net weekly income, and the maximum rebate will be reduced by 15 per cent. of this difference. Rebate will be payable only where it is 50p a week more. I hope that the House will welcome the fact that the taper for the community charge rebate scheme is 15 per cent. as opposed to the 20 per cent. taper used in rebating rates. We estimate that about 1 million more people will be brought into rebate because of this.
Our objective in formulating the community charge benefit regulations has been to maintain alignment with the housing benefit regulations wherever practicable. This has a number of advantages, which I hope the House will recognise. It is easier for claimants to understand, and we expect virtually all housing benefit claimants to get community charge benefit, and it is also helpful to the local authorities who will be administering the scheme. It also maintains the overall simplification and alignment of the income-related benefits that we achieved with the 1988 reforms. As well as retaining the same procedures for calculating capital, net weekly income and applicable amounts, we have retained broadly the same procedures for the making of claims, and for determinations, notifications and reviews.
The small number of changes that we have had to introduce are there because rebating an individual liability is not exactly the same as rebating a property-based liability. These changes are most obvious in the case of couples. We have retained the principle that the resources of the two partners in a couple should be considered jointly, so, although in nearly all cases the two partners in a couple will each be liable for the community charge, only one of them will need to claim community charge benefit. Their community charge liabilities will be aggregated, their financial resources will be assessed jointly, and their circumstances will be assessed using their applicable amount as a couple. On this basis, the amount of rebate due to the couple will be calculated, and divided between the two partners.
I wrote to all right hon. and hon. Members at the beginning of May describing the most important aspects of the community charge benefit scheme, and giving some examples of the levels of income at which various categories of claimant could expect to receive a rebate. I do not intend to repeat those examples now, but I should add that we expect about a quarter of all the people who are liable for the charge to benefit from rebates, and in our


view this represents the right balance between providing help for people who need it and ensuring that the taxpayers' money is properly used.
I stress that we do not underestimate the need to ensure that claimants move readily from rate rebates to community charge benefit, and the need to help local authorities in their task of implementing the new scheme. To this end we will be introducing a number of special arrangements to facilitate the introduction of the scheme, and these will be prescribed in the Community Charge Benefits (Transitional) Order 1989, which we intend laying before the House as soon as the benefit regulations come into effect. These transitional provisions are not before the House today, and therefore not the subject of our debate.
In commending the regulations to the House, I should like to make clear the extent of our consultation, since the autumn of 1987, with the local authority associations, and to express my gratitude for their co-operation. We have also formally consulted the associations and the Social Security Advisory Committee. The comments that we received were helpful and constructive, and a large number of them have been incorporated in the regulations before the House.
Most of the provisions in the regulations dealing with the unemployed flow from the powers taken in the Social Security Act 1989. The matter is slightly complicated by the need for two sets of regulations, one for unemployment benefit and the other for income support. I should first point out to hon. Members that there was a printed error in the published version of the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989. This was corrected in the version laid before the House, but Members' copies will be wrong. In new regulation 10A(3) of the general regulations the word "recorded" should have read "regarded". I am very sorry that this error occurred and I hope that it has not caused too much confusion.
I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, South will agree that we had a demanding but rewarding Committee stage which resulted in some important improvements to the Bill. I know that we ended up not being able to see eye to eye on the provisions that have led to these regulations, but during our debates in Committee we gave a number of undertakings as a result of those debates. I hope that those who examine the regulations with an open mind will regard them as evidence of our good faith and of our being prepared to listen to the representations put to us.
The two areas that gave rise to the most concern at earlier stages were the introduction of the new, actively seeking work condition and the new permitted period, which limits the time when an individual may, without a risk to his benefit, decline employment outside his usual occupation. We have repeatedly said that employment service staff will interpret these new provisions in a fair and sensitive way. I am sure that we can be confident of their ability to do that. Employment service staff are already faced daily with individuals from all walks of life, with differing needs, capabilities and expectations. They are constantly called on to use their judgment to ensure that the needs of the individual are accommodated, while the conditions for benefit, as laid down by Parliament, are complied with.
Of course, that presents a challenge. Our new provisions will sometimes increase the demands on these staff, but they give them the tools to do the job properly. I am confident that, in their usual way, and with the

additional training that is to be provided for undertaking this important work, the staff will rise fully to that challenge.
During earlier debates we heard much criticism of the proposal that unemployed claimants should have to seek work actively in return for benefit. Some Opposition Members doubted whether the legislation was necessary to enforce that principle. However, the Bill became the Act, and the appropriate wording is now in place.
The regulations say that an unemployed person must, in any week, take those steps that are reasonable in his case and which offer him his best prospects of employment. That is not unreasonable. However, to ensure that the test is applied in a sensitive and fair way, we have laid down certain things that we think form a vital part of the picture. First, we have given examples of particular matters to which the adjudication officer should have regard in deciding what was reasonable in an individual claimant's case. Some of these are obvious: for example, the claimant's skills, qualifications, abilities, or physical or mental limitations; similarly, how long he has been unemployed, his work experience, what jobs are available and where they are, and what he had done already to seek work. Others may be less obvious, but are none the less important.
One example that came out of our discussions in Committee—a number of Members who served on it are present today—is the effect on job search if a claimant is homeless. Any limitations that that may place on him will be taken into account. The Committee discussions also led us to specify that regard should be had to time spent on particularly worthwhile activities—for example, service as part-time firemen, lifeboatmen or emergency workers, or attendance at outward bound or guide dog training courses. Another group for whom concern was expressed in Committee consisted of those spending time on vocational training or study, on voluntary work or in an employment or training programme. None of these activities will absolve the individual claimant totally from the need to seek work. We believe that that would be wrong. None the less, all these factors can be weighed in considering either the amount of time which is spent in looking for work or the actual steps which the individual claimant could be expected to undertake.
The regulations also give examples of the types of step that a person may take. As we explained at an earlier stage, the list of examples is not exhaustive or exclusive; it is up to the individual claimant to decide how best to go about securing employment in his chosen field. The list suggests the most common ways of seeking work, but any other equally or more meritorious steps will be taken into account.
As I have already said, a claimant will be expected to seek work every week. Currently, most claimants attend the benefit office fortnightly, and that will not change. The way the job search week will work will be, for example, that a person who attends the office on alternate Wednesdays will be expected to satisfy the test for each Thursday to Wednesday period. In this way, we think that claimants will readily understand that the period that they are being asked about is the two weeks ending on the day on which they are being asked to confirm that they are seeking work.
The last point that I want to mention on actively seeking work is an important one. There will be a number of circumstances in which an individual claimant may be


deemed to be actively seeking work for a given week. These include the first and last weeks of unemployment, when it may be unreasonable to expect a person to meet the condition. Similarly, an individual claimant who is away from home may be excused job search for up to two weeks in a year. Of course, he will still have to be available for work, as now, but I think that this is an important concession. It covers an area we discussed in Committee; short periods of absence, perhaps due to family emergency, can be catered for within the normal arrangements. Provided the claimant is available for work, he should have time during the week to undertake some job search to satisfy the condition.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister say something about the level of remuneration that people seeking work may be expected to accept? Last year, one of my constituents who had said that he wanted £80 a week was told that under the then rules he was pricing himself out of the market and would therefore lose benefit. He appealed against that and won, but in this day and age it is ridiculous to expect a married person with a family to go for a job at less than £80 a week.

Mr. Scott: The employment service will not offer jobs at derisory wages. We discussed this in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman may well have read our proceedings. We do not believe that it is the Government's job to lay down what wages should be paid in particular industries or occupations. We believe that the market is the right force to determine that.
Only if someone turns down a job offered him by the employment service will he be at risk of losing benefit for not having had good cause for turning it down.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister confirm—he was unable to do so in Committee—that it would be reasonable for people to turn down jobs if the amount the job pays, plus the family credit that they gain, will be less than their benefit received while unemployed?

Mr. Scott: Given the in-work benefits that are available, it would be almost impossible for someone to be worse off in employment than on benefit. Nevertheless, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that there might not be an occasional case when that happens.

Mr. Field: If the Government are so confident about getting it right, why cannot the Minister give a clear assurance that people will not be sent for jobs that will pay them less than what they received in benefit?

Mr. Scott: It is not right for the Government to intervene in that way. There may very well be circumstances in which it would be manifestly for the long-term benefit of an individual to take employment that might offer him less than he was receiving in benefit as it would get him back into employment and enable him in due course substantially to increase those earnings for the benefit of himself and his family. Therefore, it would be wrong for us to introduce the provisions that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Anyone who attends an outward bound course may be deemed to satisfy the condition for up to three weeks. A blind person attending a training course for the use of guide dogs may be deemed to satisfy it for up to four

weeks. We have also arranged to deem as actively seeking work individual claimants who spend no less than three days a week participating in some worthwhile activity. That would include firemen, lifeboatmen, emergency workers and those undertaking employment or training programmes.
Although unemployment benefit is primarily intended for those seeking to return to employed earners' employment, we have agreed an important concession for those hoping to become self-employed. They may be deemed to be actively seeking work for up to eight weeks if they are actively pursuing self-employment via the enterprise allowance scheme. The eight weeks will run between the time when the person attends the awareness day under the scheme and makes the application and the start of his self-employment under the scheme. I hope that those arrangements will provide sensible help to claimants who wish not to go into employment but to pursue self-employment.
In Committee there was a great deal of debate about replacing "refusal of suitable employment" with the concept of "refusing employment without good cause". The Act has removed the concept of the employment service having to prove that employment refused by a claimant was in fact "suitable"; the onus will now be on the claimant to show that he had good cause for turning down employment. We think that this is a much-needed change, but, as it is a change, we also feel that it is right for Parliament to lay down guidelines for deciding good cause so that claimants have an understanding of what to expect.
The concept of good cause is not a new one. Current legislation allows a person to escape disqualification for unemployment benefit for turning down or failing to follow up an opportunity of employment if the adjudication officer decides that he had good cause. The adjudication authorities have built up a considerable body of case law, but currently there is no guidance in regulations on the meaning of "good cause".
The regulations specifically require the adjudication authorities to consider, in relation to a failure to follow up any job opportunity, whether the particular employment would be likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's health or whether it would subject him to excessive physical or mental stress. Other matters that they will be required to consider will include any sincerely held religious or conscientious objections that the claimant may have to undertaking particular work, and certain domestic circumstances that might make it unreasonable for him to accept a particular vacancy.
The regulations provide that a person will not generally be able to show good cause unless his journey to work or training would take at least an hour, but there are exceptions of course for those with health problems and caring responsibilities.
Returning to a point I touched on in response to an earlier intervention, a person who turns down a job on pay grounds will not be able to show good cause outside what the legislation calls the "permitted period" at the start of his claim if the job opportunity has been notified to him by the employment service. Only vacancies handled by the employment service will attract that sanction. That will be an important safeguard.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister meet the House on another point? If the security is that the job has been offered by the employment service, will he guarantee that


the employment service will not advertise or send people to jobs covered by wages councils, if the employer is trying to pay below the legal minimum?

Mr. Scott: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking. As he knows, the Government do not consider it their role to interfere in the way that he suggests. The employment service will not offer jobs at derisory wages. I cannot accept that it is right or sensible to move into the detailed control of what wages are offered, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is highly unlikely that the employment service would do that, but I certainly cannot give a guarantee that it will never do it.

Mr. Frank Field: I am not asking the Government to put their sticky fingers into the private affairs of all employers. The Government still have a statutory responsibility to lay down some minimum wages. I am asking that one part of the Government tallies with another part of the Government, and that people will not be sent for jobs paying below the legal minimum. Will the Minister give that guarantee, as people may lose benefit if they do not turn up for those jobs?

Mr. Scott: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking now, but I shall write to him on the point that he has raised.
the final point on this part of the regulations is about "trial periods". That is a new concept which has been widely welcomed. It recognises the concerns that affect people who have been out of work for some time. The regulations define the claimants who will have a right to benefit from that provision. The provision enables a person to escape a benefit sanction if he gives up a job from the sixth week up to the 12th week of a trial period. It will apply to claimants who have neither worked nor been in full-time education throughout the 26 weeks before the day on which the new job starts. That is an important step in the right direction, encouraging people who have been unemployed for some time to try out a job, knowing that if they fail, or the job proves unsuitable, they will not have put their benefit at risk.
I shall not detain the House for an undue length of time. Other points may be raised in the debate to which I may or may not wish to respond, but the three sets of regulations represent a number of changes to the provision of benefit. On the unemployment issues, I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that we have reflected in the regulations, without resiling from the principle we incorporated in the Bill, many of the concerns that they and some of my hon. Friends voiced in Committee. I assure the House that the Committee discussions had considerable influence on the detailed provisions in the regulations. I know that the hon. Member for Derby, South will feel that we have not gone far enough, but we have considered in great detail all the issues that were raised. I hope that she will feel that we have shown that the discussions in Committee were worth while, although we have not allowed them to undermine our policy intention.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Can the Minister tell the House whether refusal of work on the grounds of the hours of work being excessive, or bad conditions relating to carrying out the job, are covered by what he said?

Mr. Scott: I am confident that those who offer jobs to claimants through the employment service or adjudicate

on these matters will do it in a fair and sensitive way. They will take into account a range of factors and I cannot say whether those factors will include the circumstances that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I join the Minister of State in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), to our ranks. I am not sure whether to commiserate with the Minister of State on remaining where he is, as the alternative might have been even less desirable. The Opposition welcome back the new Secretary of State, if only because in the autumn we shall have the opportunity to hold him to his own words about child benefit, instead of seeking to hold a successor to his predecessor's words.
I begin by drawing attention to the absurdity of the debate in which we are engaged today. In a fairly brief time we are debating long and complex regulations, most of which were laid before the House only last Friday. The measures relating to the Social Security Act 1989 will become law before the House returns from the recess, and the timetable does not lend itself to hon. Members having time to consider the implications of the various proposals before us. That is particularly important, as we cannot amend those proposals.
It is also important to consider the regulations because each set of regulations is complex, although they have three things in common. First, they all attack members of the community who need support. Secondly, they all reflect and highlight the objectionable nature of legislation to the purpose of which they give effect. Thirdly, such minor concessions as the regulations contain fail utterly either to disguise or to rectify the harm that they will do.
In common with the Minister, I wish to begin by discussing the community charge regulations. The House has debated the poll tax at length, and as recently as yesterday, so I propose to comment on a few aspects only of the regulations which, as the Minister said, in the main mirror the law on rate rebates. The decision to force all citizens to pay at least 20 per cent. of their rates was unjust and damaging. Its reflection in the poll tax, which by its nature is a worse tax, is a more harmful imposition. Those who face that extra bill are being cheated by the Government in poll tax as they were cheated in rates because they are not being compensated, as the Government claim, for the extra that they must pay. Accounting sleight of hand has clawed back the so-called compensation.
The figures used in yesterday's debate show how those on extremely low incomes will, despite all the Government's weasel words, be liable to pay not just a large part, but the full poll tax. It is clear, for example, that working under-25-year-olds with net incomes as low as £50 or £60 per week are likely to pay the full amount. Single pensioners without earnings on incomes of about £60 or £70 per week will lose all help. Couples on way below average earnings and with children will also be liable to pay the full poll tax.
Having studied the figures, we are somewhat dubious about the Government's claim that it does not matter if the poll tax is onerous and unjust, because one in four will get help to pay it. The Minister repeated that claim today. I am prepared to be generous and assume that, for once, the


Government are telling the simple truth and that, when the poll tax first comes into effect, one in four will benefit to some extent from the poll tax rebates. I predict with absolute confidence, however, that if one in four people turns out to get some rebate, it will not be long before voices are heard in the Government or on the Conservative Back Benches arguing that the system must be too generous and that benefits should be cut.
That is what always happens under the present Government. First, they change the system in a way that happens to increase the burden on those on low incomes. Then they claim that that does not matter because those on low incomes will be helped through social security. Subsequently, however, they say that too many people are being helped, so the system must be too generous. The social security is then cut by a process described as "better targeting". The Government have done that over and over again.
We believe that the demand for at least a 20 per cent. payment from everyone is wrong and that the rate of withdrawal of rebate as income rises remains too harsh. The Social Security Advisory Committee, in its comments on the regulations, drew attention to the fact that the combination of Government policies means that low earners still lose 80p or 90p for every pound by which their income rises. In common with the Labour party, the SSAC rightly contrasts that with the way in which those on higher incomes lose only half that amount from their marginal tax rates.
Apart from the overall picture, one or two detailed issues should be drawn to the attention of the House and placed on record. First, serious problems have arisen in Scotland over the backdating of claims. We believe that the Government should re-examine that issue—especially if, as I believe the new Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday, they want to improve the take-up of rebates. Secondly, there are bound to be occasions when overpayment of rebate occurs. Currently there are limits to the action that an authority can take to recover such overpayments, but under the regulations overpayment will be regarded as arrears, although they are not the fault of the claimant.
The authority can recover those overpayments by all the means allowed under poll tax legislation for the recovery of arrears—by deduction from earnings or benefits, by seizure of goods and by the ultimate sanction to hang over the head of the individual, imprisonment. The authority does not have to take any account of ability to repay a debt which, by definition, may not be the claimant's fault. Again, it is some of those detailed difficulties which foster our conclusion that such problems, whether of backdating or of overpayment, are likely to Occur.
It is outrageous that someone in hospital for more than six weeks, whose benefit then drops to £8 or £9 per week, should remain liable for at least 20 per cent. of their poll tax. They may also be treated more harshly with respect to earnings disregard than under the current law—and all at a time when the person may have graver things to worry about. The Minister is fond of using the phrase "a perverse incentive". To give a person seriously ill in hospital for a long time a "perverse incentive" to depart this world is perverse indeed. Similarly, it seems ridiculous that

someone with a disability—already liable to a personal poll tax charge because he lives in the community—who goes to spend a couple of weeks in a hostel not only becomes liable to pay a daily collective poll tax as well, but even has to make a separate claim to get the rebate to which the law entitles him on that second poll tax charge. That is the kind of absurdity and nonsense that will cause great anxiety and concern and, which in practice will help to discredit this discreditable tax.
It is important to consider the separate issues raised by the other regulations before us which give effect to the Social Security Act 1989. The purpose of that Act is simply to drive people off the unemployment register at almost any cost—especially to them—and, if need be, into low-paid or even temporary employment.
The Minister referred to the way in which the regulations reflect some of the anxieties expressed in Committee about the dangers for the homeless, about the pressure on those who do voluntary work and about the absurdity of expecting someone on holiday to show what he has done actively to seek work, and so on. We welcome anything that improves the way in which the regulations might operate, but by their explicitness the regulations expose and bring into focus the full horror of what the Government are proposing in the 1989 Act. The Government have claimed throughout that a "tiny minority" of people—their term—might be abusing the system by not looking for work as energetically or effectively as they could. Because of that tiny minority, all those unfortunate enough to be unemployed will be exposed to weekly humiliation and shame as their failures are dragged into the light of day time and time again, week after week.
Ministers have argued—the right hon. Gentleman did so again today—that it does not matter that the majority will suffer because a tiny minority might be at fault, because that suffering will be avoided since, whatever the law might say, the employment service will implement the regulations with compassion and understanding. That is not and cannot be true. The employment service cannot implement the regulations with compassion or understanding. One need only look at the regulations for it to become crystal clear, beyond any question or doubt, that if the employment service is to show compassion and understanding it will have to ignore the regulations and fail to put them into effect. It is not possible for anyone to demand a report of the steps that are called for in the regulations and to be compassionate to someone for whom that recital exposes a weekly catalogue of failure.
The regulations require the employment service to ascertain what steps have been taken each and every week to look for work. They explicitly state that one step will usually be insufficient and that more suitable and appropriate steps must be taken. The Minister has identified a framework of possible explanation, justification or, in some cases, exemption, but the point of all our objections to the Act and to the regulations, which the Minister has refused to accept although I am sure he grasps it, is that the sheer process of questioning and eliciting that information, week in and week out, will harass and humiliate the unemployed. This is particularly true of two groups—first, those who have been ruled to be "fit for light work", a ruling that many people unsuccessfully dispute and, secondly, those who are not actually receiving benefit but are forced to sign on to continue to get pension credits, who often know that they


have no realistic prospect of finding work and will deeply resent being put through this catalogue to establish their entitlement only to credits.
I should be grateful if the Minister can clarify, either today or in writing later, the steps that people have to take if they are not to risk losing benefit and if he will say whether membership of a job club or acceptance, however reluctantly, of an employment training place will of itself satisfy the provisions. I am sorry to say that, whatever else may be clear, that is not. The main point that concerns us is that those who fall foul of this aspect of the law run the risk of losing all right to benefit. If they lose benefit, they may well receive no income for a month, as the Minister made plain in his remarks and as we elicited in Committee.
At the end of a two-week period, a person will be judged as to whether he or she has been actively seeking work during that period. Such people would normally then get their payment of benefit for those two weeks in arrears. If they are judged not to have been actively seeking work, they automatically lose that money, but they cannot resatisfy that provision for some time. When they do resatisfy it, the benefit will again be paid in arrears. It seemed to us in Committee, and it seems to me now, that the minimum period for which one could lose one's right to benefit would be a month.
I know that a person can apply for a payment on the grounds of hardship—that would be a payment of income support; hence our parallel regulations—but, of course, that person has no right to such a payment. He or she can plead for it only if hardship can be shown. If it is awarded, it is liable to be paid only at a reduced rate of 60 per cent. of normal benefit rates. We are especially disturbed that this may happen where a doubt has arisen about a person's active search for work but no decision has yet been made. Once already, following the suicide of Rachel Caine, the Government have drawn back from withdrawing benefit rights while a formal decision is considered. We particularly regret the fact that in these regulations, and with regard to the provision about actively seeking work, the Government have reneged on that decision.
I am also alarmed that in these regulations the Government take power to withdraw benefit for a whole week if a person is thought to have restricted his or her availability for work on just one day. Apart from anything else, it is hard to see—again, despite the Minister's observations about the variety of circumstances that will be taken into account—how or whether that or other provisions will in practice allow unemployed people to study under the 21-hour rule, which has allowed some people to try to improve their circumstances while remaining unemployed and without losing benefit.
That brings me to the aspects of the regulations which are supposed, by encouraging people to undertake a wider variety of training or jobs, to "ease the rigidities"—the phrase used by the Minister in Committee—of the labour market. This is DSS-speak for removing the protection which our law has offered for 60 years and which prevents a person from being forced into low-paid, temporary or unsuitable work. The Minister said, with commendable frankness, that in these regulations the onus of showing whether work is suitable is removed from the employment service and placed on the claimant. My hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Preston (Mrs. Wise) pressed the Minister on that point.
It is clear from the regulations, and even clearer from the Minister's reply, that there is no pay so low and no

working conditions so harsh that someone might not be pressed to take a job or training place in such circumstances. The regulations state that the possible danger to health must be "severe". We have had experience—my hon. Friend the Member for Preston will recall discussions in a previous Committee—of how restrictively that definition can be interpreted. If we talk about a person having a degree of protection only if there is a "severe" danger to his or her health, that again fills us with alarm.
Even though we have persuaded the Government at least to consider some of the practicalities of the issue—we are grateful for small mercies—such as travel time and what the work expenses are likely to be before people can be disqualified from right to benefit or credits, we still believe that they will not be enough. It is clear that people may be pressed to take a job or a training place which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead explained, pays less than they can draw on benefit, with possible serious implications for their well-being and that of their families.
In the past, when we have made this point, occasionally Conservative Members have said, "Why should that riot be so? After all, people should be in work and not drawing benefit, if there is any work available, even if the pay is less than benefit." We all know that there are people whose devotion to the work ethic is so strong that they are prepared to take work even when they might receive more to support their families if they drew benefit. There are people prepared to make that sacrifice on their own and their families' behalf. The fact that there are some individuals who hold the work ethic so strongly that they are prepared to take that step is one thing, but for the Government to attempt to force people to do so, whatever harm may be caused to their families, is another matter and may cause considerable family problems and hardship.
We are particularly worried about this point—again, it is explicit in the law—because the jobs and places that people are forced to take may be temporary, yet their acceptance may cause the loss of transitional additions to benefit. The House will recall that these transitional additions are paid only to those whose benefit entitlement under the new, improved social security system post-1988 is less than their benefit entitlement under the old unimproved system. These are likely to be people with minor disabilities, who previously received extra weekly payments but who may have lost them under the new provisions. That is exactly the kind of group who may have been ruled to be "fit for light work", but if those people are forced to take such work temporarily they will lose their transitional additions.
There are other detailed anomalies or problems with the regulations, such as the reference to "qualifying former employment", which I presume is meant to deal with those who take maternity leave and whose child care needs may preclude them from returning, or make them wish not to return, to their previous jobs. There are also aspects of the new phraseology for dealing with payments which the Department will decide are payments in lieu of notice, thereby perhaps deriving people of benefit.
These complex regulations raise such a variety of issues that it is impossible to deal with them in the time available to the House. In any event, because we cannot amend the regulations but must accept or reject them whole and entire, we should concentrate on their overall purpose and


effect. The overall purpose of these unemployment benefit regulations stems from policies which have produced a vicious Act of Parliament, against the detailed implementation of which we have the strongest objections. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the regulations.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: This debate is being held in an atmosphere of rapidly falling unemployment throughout the country. Of course, it has been falling for a considerable period. Although the Government must always remain conscious of the needs of unemployed people, they must be well aware also of the need to fill all the jobs using the labour and skills available as we move towards the 1990s. This is an enormous problem not only in this country but throughout the western world. In that context, the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister is all the more important in showing the Government's caring attitude towards those who are still unemployed and may be unemployed in the future.
I remember well our discussions in Committee on the matters we are discussing this evening relating to the need for those who receive benefit to be actively seeking work. I also remember some of the remarks made by the Opposition which seemed quite remarkable at the time, and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said nothing to alter my view this evening.
The state always has the responsibility to do what it can to help those who are unemployed to find work. However, although that is the responsibility of the state, those who are unemployed and those who advocate the cause of the unemployed also have a responsibility. In exchange for the Government doing everything they can to provide a climate in which jobs are available, social security and financial help in the short term for the unemployed, and extra training and places in employment, it is only right that we should be able to expect that those who are unemployed and who claim to wish to be employed should be asked to demonstrate that in a tangible way. That is not a monstrous or unreasonable suggestion; it is highly reasonable, and is the purpose of our proposals. It was the purpose of our proposals in Committee and the regulations flesh out those proposals, so the Minister is now carrying out his pledges in Committee.
The regulations and the criteria they contain show the compassion that the Government expect to be shown to the unemployed who go for assessment. It is important not to have the impression that we are trying to tighten up the system. We are not; that is why the hon. Member for Derby, South is so wrong. We are trying to be as flexible as possible and to give as much benefit of the doubt to as many as we can, taking into account the points my right hon. Friend the Minister made about the skills each individual may have, his work experience, the particular circumstances of his home life and any other difficulties he may have—which, as a compassionate Government, we would want to see put on the back of the legislation.
As a Government, we have done much to provide new jobs. We have done everything any Government could reasonably be expected to do, and far more than previous Governments have managed to do. It is important,

therefore, that those who are offered all this help should try to take advantage of what we are giving them to help themselves. In a moral sense, the most important aim is to provide people with the opportunity to help themselves and their families. That must be the moral high ground, and that is the position the Government have taken.
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—who I regret is not here this evening—speak several times in Committee about the jobs she considered to be unacceptable to present to people who were asked to show that they were looking for work. The worst job she could think of was working for a fast food outlet called McDonald's, and she went on about it repeatedly. I wondered about her motives and whether she had had a difficult experience consuming one of its products. However, she picked the wrong organisation. Organisations such as McDonald's have a proper management structure, and encourage people who show that they are prepared to work to get on.
The hon. Member for Derby, South said this evening that people might be offered work that was somehow unacceptable to them. We should be able to support work in itself. We should value the work ethic because work is good, not bad, as has been suggested. The vast majority of people, as Opposition Members say, agree with that.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: No.

Mr. McCartney: Come on: give way.

Mr. Kirkhope: I will not give way.
We came to the conclusion in Committee that the Opposition thought that there was something wrong about. work and that work itself was not an especially good thing. They seemed to believe that, if the work was not eminently suitable for all the requirements of an individual, he should not work at all. That seems an odd attitude; if they want to be sensible, they should realise the need for us to be able to fill jobs as we go into the 1990s.
The regulations are not only eminently sensible and in line with the commitment that my right hon. Friend gave in Committee that he would puruse the matter further: they show yet again how we care and how we shall try as hard as we can to ensure that the regulations are applied in a humane and compassionate, but nevertheless a determined manner.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The whole purpose of the regulations, despite the Minister's protestations, is to intervene in the market, and to drive down wages and worsen conditions for those who are already low paid and already in difficulties as a result of lack of skills or other problems. They are the people who will suffer because of the Government's actions.
The Minister talked much about not intervening in the market. We know that the labour market exists and that it is a market in which people buy and sell labour, but we also know that the buyers and sellers of labour do not meet on equal terms. A person trying to sell his or her labour does so under the constraint that, if he or she fails to obtain an adequate price or proper conditions, he or she cannot withdraw from the transaction except at the risk of being unable to have the means of life. Those are not equal


terms. The buyer of labour—the employer—does not face such a constraint; that is why workers have had to try to combine to protect themselves and to have some chance of achieving fair wages—a fair price for their labour.

Mr. McCartney: I can give my hon. Friend an example of the Government intervening in the marketplace to drive down wages. The Department of Health has circulated rules to district health authorities about the privatisation of internal activities such as laundry. One of my local health authorities recently awarded a contract to a company outside the direct labour organisation. The employees were sacked. Some were offered their jobs back at two thirds of their previously low wages. As they had already received the letter, refusal to accept the offer meant that they would not be awarded benefit. Some still refused to accept the offer and now do not receive benefit as a result of the Government's direct intervention in the marketplace.

Mrs. Wise: I thank my hon. Friend for that example. We have been treated this evening to a clear demonstration of the lengths to which the Government are prepared to go. In response to pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Minister categorically refused to give an undertaking that Government agencies would not offer work at illegally low wages.
We are discussing not undesirable wages, but illegal wages. The Government hint and threaten that they intend to abolish wages councils. They would dearly like to do that because they do not want any wage floor—they do not want any wage to be regarded as too low. They have not yet abolished wages councils, however, and there are still wages that are illegal. The Minister has refused to say that the Government employment service would not offer jobs at those illegal wages. The Government are thus prepared to connive at employers breaking the law. Yet the Minister talks about not intervening.
I inquired whether refusal of work on the grounds that the hours were excessive or unsuitable would be regarded as within a person's rights. The Minister refused to give any such undertaking. In parallel with the Social Security Bill, an Employment Bill has been going through the House whose effect will be to remove a great many rights previously attaching to young people and women. There are jobs which at this moment it would still be illegal for women to take, but if, after the Employment Bill becomes an Act, women are unwilling to take such jobs, they may well be refused benefit. The stress that is being placed on workers to take jobs, regardless of the conditions and hours, and no matter how sweated the work may be, is unprecedented since early this century.
Let me give the House an example of the kind of thing that is happening to women's work at the moment. A well-known supermarket is trying to impose on its checkout operators a target of handling 25 items per minute. Does the Minister regard that as likely to do serious harm to a person's health? I can assure him that it does.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) talking about the new system EFTPOS, whereby the checkout operator passes an item carrying a bar code over a light? If so, 25 items a minute does not seem that arduous.

Mrs. Wise: Oh, so it is not arduous. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) does not seem to understand that supermarket checkout operators have to lift the produce. Has the hon. Gentleman ever tried to lift—[Interruption.] Yes, it has to be lifted. I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman never goes shopping.

Hon. Members: He does it all the time.

Mr. McCartney: He sends his butler.

Mrs. Wise: That is more likely.
My union has calculated that such workers may be handling a ton of goods every few hours—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Pembroke thinks that it is nothing, does he? The hon. Gentleman does not know what a Europacket of detergent looks or feels like. Members of my union who work on supermarket checkouts know what it feels like to lift endless products on to and off a conveyor belt.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: No, I will not give way. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that he volunteers to go to work in the supermarket to which I have referred—not for five minutes but for a week at least. I shall make very sure that his words and attitudes are made well known to the women in the retail trade whom he derides.

Mr. Pike: Is it not also a fact that, when checkout operators pass items across the machine that reads the bar code, the machine often does not read the code on the first time? When I have been standing in checkout queues, the operators have often had to repeat the process two or three times before the light has caught the bar code in the right way to register the transaction on the till.

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is perfectly right.
I might tell the hon. Member for Pembroke that another well-known supermarket chain has a target of 20 items per minute, or three items per second—

Mr. Bennett: Three items per second?

Mrs. Wise: I am sorry—I mean an item every three seconds. That is already causing considerable harm to the workers in that supermarket chain. Conservative Members and their wives and daughters will never work as supermarket checkout operators.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mrs. Wise: If there is anything that I can say with confidence, it is that they have never done such work and will never do it—

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: No. [HON. MEMBERS: Give way.] No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall tell him why. Yesterday evening I waited three hours hoping to speak on health. The debate was hijacked by Conservative Members who took an inordinate amount of time so that only two Labour Members were able to speak although the debate was on an Opposition day. I have let him intervene once. He has talked rubbish once and I shall refrain from allowing him to reveal his superior attitude and his arrogance again.
I have described the developments that are taking place in the retail trade. Employers are being aided and abetted


in their attacks on employees by their Government—because this is the employers' Government. Workers who try to resist conditions which are totally unsuitable will be deprived of the means of life. That is what this debate is about, and it is a serious matter.
Let me give the House some further examples of the Government's hypocrisy. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who has not managed to stay to listen even to the speech following his own, talked about the high moral ground, and the Government claim that high moral ground. But the regulations that already exist—which will be worsened by those under debate—include requirements that people should be available for work at 24 hours' notice. That requirement applies to people who care for children or elderly people, who want and need to go into the labour market and who could accept work were they given a reasonable opportunity to make care arrangements.
The Government allow them 24 hours. That can have one of two effects: either the person refuses the job and loses the benefit, or the child or old or sick person has to be left in unsuitable care, or even with no care. The requirement for availability at 24 hours' notice gives people very little opportunity to arrange care. If the Government wanted to be reasonable, they would allow at least a fortnight, so that the person seeking work could make arrangements.
It is impossible for people to make arrangements for child care before they know whether they have a job, where the job is or what wages will be offered. It is only possible to arrange child care once those things are known. However, people are allowed only 24 hours to arrange care. If the Government really wanted to make it easier for people to enter the labour market, they would have changed the regulations, and had they done so, we would have supported them tonight.
To some extent, travelling costs are taken into account when judging whether it is reasonable for someone to refuse a job. However, child care costs are not considered. Under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the Minister refused to give an undertaking that someone would not be required to accept a job which left him or her worse off in an absolute sense. The need to pay child care costs can exacerbate the problem and lead to people being worse off. However, so far removed from reality are Conservative Members that they have ignored those genuine problems.
Conservative Members prefer to pretend that they stand on the high moral ground, and they accuse other people of wilfully refusing work. I believe that people do not wilfully refuse work. The vast majority of people dislike being unemployed. They dislike its stigma and lack of income and the fact that it causes many people to feel that their lives are without purpose.
The unemployed want work. It is the final straw for those people when the Government tell them that they are to blame for their own problems. It is the final insult for the Government to claim that the unemployed are wilfully refusing work and to tell them that, for their own good, they will be forced to accept work, regardless of the wages, the hours and whether it is night work or totally unsuitable shifts for women workers—which will now become legal—and even regardless of whether the wages are actually

illegal. Those people will be forced to accept work so that Conservative Members can believe that the work ethic is being pursued in this country. It would be more tolerable if Conservative Members abandoned their hypocritical claim to the moral high ground and simply said that they were against the workers. That is the truth.

Mr. Simon Burns: I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that it is a great pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) to the Government Front Bench as the new Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. Without wanting to sound in any way patronising, it is particularly welcome to see joining the Government for the first time one of my Back-Bench colleagues who has a great deal of experience in the subject for which she now holds a brief.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West lived in the real world, many miles from this place, she was associated with health and social security matters in Norfolk. The Department of Social Security, the Government and the House will benefit from her knowledge and expertise and from the sympathetic way in which she deals with these matters, as I witnessed before her elevation, when I had the privilege, over the past two years, of sharing two Standing Committees with her—the Committee stages of the Social Security Acts 1988 and 1989. I want to wish her every success.
It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) to learn that I could not agree with almost anything that she said. Fortunately, I have never fallen into the trap of regarding everyone on the unemployment register as a scrounger, a ne'er-do-well or someone who does not want to look for work. However, I have not made the gross mistake of claiming that everyone on the unemployment register desperately wants to find work and is looking for it day in, day out. Sadly, that is not the case. I do not believe that there are many scroungers on the unemployment register or people who are not prepared to look for work. In many instances, the numbers are grossly exaggerated. However, we must be realists.
I want tonight to consider the regulations which bring out the fine detail of the broad sweep of the Social Security Act 1989, which introduces the requirement for people actively to seek work before they can qualify for and claim unemployment benefit. I see nothing wrong with that requirement. As I have said before, I cannot see any justification for fully able-bodied people to claim unemployment benefit if they have no intention of trying to find a job or taking a job if one is shown to them.
The 1987 labour survey showed that there were 700,000 vacant jobs and that 350,000 unemployed people could have found jobs because the vacancies did not necessarily require specialist training or those jobs included an offer of training. We are extremely fortunate in my constituency at the moment. There are 1,711 unemployed people, representing 2·9 per cent. of the population. However, companies in Chelmsford are crying out for staff to fill vacancies. It is not surprising that business men and retailers ask me in amazement, "Where is the unemployment? I am looking for someone to work for me and I am prepared to train them if they are not trained, but


I can't get anyone and haven't been able to get anyone for weeks. Nevertheless, I understand that there are more than 1,700 people unemployed in the area."
There is a great deal of confusion about this. I believe that this requirement is long overdue and it is right for the Government to introduce the regulations, which lay down the ground rules.

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman has attended more than one of our debates on social security matters, I am sure that he can enlighten his constituents' confusion. He will have heard several of my hon. Friends who are experts in this subject remind the House that levels of unemployment and of vacancies form a shifting pattern. It is not a simple matter of saying that there are X people here and X vacancies there and the two can simply be put together. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could have explained that to his constituents.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady has not made a new point. It is obvious that there are constant changes. However, there are far too many vacancies going begging while the unemployed people do not take the jobs. That is the crux of the problem.
It is churlish of Opposition Members not to give credit where is it due to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security. As my right hon. Friend said, the regulations which deal with actively seeking work take into account the numerous debates that we had in Committee on the Social Security Act 1989, and they meet a number of the points that were raised by Opposition Members. The regulations have been improved by my right hon. Friend listening to the arguments and taking on board those arguments that were justified.

Mr. John Battle: Which ones?

Mr. Burns: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, he will discover some of the improvements that were made.
The regulations will place the onus on the individual to go out and find a job. There is welcome flexibility in the fact that the Government have accepted that there are times during the year when people must be away and cannot actively seek work—perhaps, for example, because of a death in the family or because of other personal problems. There are two weeks in which people can, for want of a better word, be exempt from actively seeking work.
Hon. Members should warmly welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the need to encourage self-employment. Allowances are made for people to become self-employed under the enterprise allowance scheme. Part-time firemen, emergency workers and other people who undertake employment or training programmes for no more than three days a week will also be helped by the regulations. The regulations will ensure that people who are out of work will register with employment agencies, contact employers and apply for jobs so that they can demonstrate that they can actively seek work. The improvement is that there will be no cop-out for those who genuinely do not want to work, but claim money.

Mr. McCartney: The previous Minister of State, Department of Employment sent his resignation to the Prime Minister on the grounds that he could not survive on £35,000 a year. In her reply, the Prime Minister said that she understood his problem. A Minister for

Employment could not be persuaded to do his job for £35,000, yet that man wanted to take benefit off some kid who cannot work for £64 a week or less.

Mr. Burns: I understand what a mistake I made by giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He expected a cheap titter of laughter for that intervention, and I am sure that he was disappointed. It was a disgraceful and totally unwarranted intervention, which brought down the level of the debate. I shall continue, after being rudely and unnecessarily interrupted.
The actively seeking work test will apply to people who have no intention of seeking work. The Government have prevented a coach and horses being driven through the regulations by shifting the onus so that a claimant must prove that he is actively seeking work, rather than the other way round. In the past, it was too easy for people who did not want to work to go reluctantly to a job interview and to fall at the first fence. It is very easy for people who do not want a job to be singularly unimpressive in a job interview, so that no employer will employ them.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: No, I am sorry, but I will not give way. Several other hon. Members want to speak in the debate, and I want to keep my remarks relatively short.
A claimant will have to justify his actions over the set period. A glaring loophole will be avoided before the regulations come into force.
I welcome the regulations. The Opposition should be grateful for them. Only the most churlish Opposition Member would not recognise that the arguments in Committee were listened to and adopted. The country will accept that, if people are to take unemployment benefit because they are genuinely unemployed, as part of the contract the least that anybody can do is honour his side of the bargain and go out and seek a job. That will also ensure that unemployment is genuine.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State to her new position. I always examine Cabinet reshuffles to find out whether any hon. Member with compassion will join the Government. The Under-Secretary has compassion, and I hope that she brings it to social security debates.
There is deep concern about the regulations. They will result in severe hardship for claimants, compel the unemployed to take up temporary training and employment schemes—whether or not they are suitable—and close the option to study on a part-time basis. The introduction of restart interviews resulted in a marked increase in the number of unemployed claimants having their availability for work challenged, often wrongly. Claimants lost benefit for prolonged periods while their appeals were heard and their cases were decided. Many lived on the arts and cultural side of life. I have known young writers and artists to be caught in prolonged periods of non-payment, and I hope that their cases will be sympathetically examined.
In response, the Government introduced a special regulation which meant that an existing claimant did not lose benefit until his case was decided by an adjudication officer. What happens to a new claimant? How long must he wait for his case to be adjudicated, and how long will


it be before a decision is made? In such cases, there appears to be a safeguard—long-winded though it may be. However, there is no such safeguard for claimants who fall foul of the actively seeking employment regulations.
A circular to employment service managers states that claimants will not be deemed to be actively seeking work pending adjudication, as presently happens with availability testing.
A claimant will be ineligible for unemployment benefit or income support until an adjudicating officer makes a decision, a process which can take weeks. A sample of 5 per cent. of availability decisions between July and September 1987 revealed that only approximately 85 per cent. were made within four weeks. Only when an adjudicating officer has made a decision can a claimant appeal and take advantage of the opportunity to receive income support at a reduced rate if hardship can be proved.
Although participation in employment schemes will be formally voluntary, a claimant can demonstrate his active job search by joining a scheme. The regulations specify that the actively seeking work condition is satisfied by application for or acceptance on a course or programme that the Secretary of State has specified and considers will improve the prospects of that person obtaining employment or becoming self-employed. It is vital to know what specifying a course or programme means, which ones are to be specified, who gives the information, and who decides what is to be specified.
In practice, joining a job club, entering employment training or attending a restart course are likely to be steps that the Secretary of State considers will improve a claimant's prospects. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. The job club in Southport is certainly successful, but I am far from certain about how job clubs are faring nationally. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point also. I believe that job clubs are not successful throughout the regions. Joining a job club is one way of satisfying the actively seeking employment condition. Job club leaders will have to ensure that all members are genuine and realistic in their search for jobs. How are they to do that? Job refusals may raise doubts about actively seeking employment or the availability of employment.
Finally, the draft regulations outline a range of active steps, including job applications and registering with employment agencies. They say nothing about claimants taking up part-time education as a way of improving their skills and employability. Given the existing pressure on 21-hour rule claimants to give up their studies, many motivated claimants will find themselves forced to take up less appropriate vocational rather than educational options. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point on further education.
I appear to have asked seven or eight questions in my short speech. I hope that the Minister will answer all or most of them. I have studied the documents carefully and I find that in many ways the Government's stance lacks compassion. Because of that, we shall vote against the motion.

7 pm

Mr. Mike Watson: I shall direct my remarks to the regulations on unemployment benefit, particularly paragraph 12 onwards.
I find it astonishing that in this day and age Conservative Members still make the sort of remarks that we heard from the hon. Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) and for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East had the audacity to talk about the Government's caring attitude. I find that unbelievable. Having done his duty for this evening by delivering his speech prepared by Conservative Central Office, he has gone off, no doubt to dinner somewhere. I hope that he enjoys it. He also talked of the high moral ground of the Government. The word "high" applies to the Government only in terms of their high and mighty attitude to people less well-off than them.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford told us that we should be grateful for the Government's policies and the new regulations. I find it difficult to accept the Oliver Twist mentality thrust down our throats by Conservative Members. It is utterly unacceptable because it is hypocritical.
The regulations in no way represent a caring attitude. They are absurd, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said. There should be no need to prove that one is actively seeking employment. I believe that only a small number of people are prepared to be unemployed for any length of time. Everyone I know who is or has been unemployed has found it insufferable. In my constituency, the official unemployment rate is 21 per cent. In real terms, if we leave aside the massaged statistics, it is much closer to 30 per cent.
Every day I come into contact with people who have been unemployed for periods, in many cases, in excess of two or three years. They do not need to be told that they will not receive unemployment benefit unless they can demonstrate that they are actively seeking employment. They are desperate for employment. They are crying out for it. Sometimes they take jobs with ludicrous rates of pay, part-time jobs or demeaning jobs which they never dreamed that they would have to take. That is the reality of Britain in 1989—a reality which the Government utterly refuse to take on board, as the new regulations show.
I refer the House to regulations 12B, D and E. Paragraph 1 of 12B states that an individual must take
the steps which are reasonable in his case as offer him his best prospects of receiving offers of employment.
The regulations do not specify how the individual is to know what steps are likely to offer the best prospects of employment, yet, when it comes to the bit, the adjudication officer will be required to decide that there may have been other steps that the individual should have taken which may have improved his prospects. How will the adjudication officer, or, indeed, the individual, make such decisions?
Paragraph 2 lists the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has taken reasonable steps. It is notable that he is not required to take the steps which are reasonable but only those likely to
offer him his best prospects of receiving offers of employment.
Imagine being desperate for work and having to plough through regulations, crossing one hurdle after another while all the time it is assumed that one is trying to defraud the system, does not want to work and would rather sit at


home with one's feet up receiving unemployment benefit. That is the assumption inherent in the regulations. The Government are wrong to assume that people do not want to work.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman is putting up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down. They are not in the least valid. When people first claim benefit they will be interviewed by a new claimant adviser. Their personal circumstances and past record will be analysed and advice will be given about the appropriate steps to take. Subsequently, if it is felt that they are not taking the most appropriate steps, they will be given further advice. Only when someone declines to accept the advice will he be in danger of falling into the trap that the hon. Gentleman outlined. The object of the employment service is to help people back into employment, not to deny them benefit.

Mr. Watson: I am glad to hear the Minister say that, but I wish that it was specified in the regulations. As in so many other cases where it is not specified, all power rests with the adjudication officer. I should be delighted if a provision could be inserted in the regulations to say that it is incumbent on DSS officers to give that advice to individuals. The regulations seem to be characterised by confusion, or at least potential confusion. Complete discretion for the adjudication officer is unsatisfactory.
Paragraph 4 of regulation 12B lists some of the steps that a person may be required to take to show that he is actively seeking employment. Presumably, the word "include" means that the list is not exhaustive. It seems odd to exclude the use of a jobcentre. I should have thought that that was the obvious place to which an individual would be expected to go to show that he is actively seeking employment. I hope that the Minister will inform us whether that has been excluded deliberately or whether it was a mistake.
In paragraph 12D, we see the Government at their most patronising. It deals with cases where individuals are deemed actively to be seeking employment even when it is clear that they are not. Apparently—I say apparently because it is not clear—they will not be required to seek work for two weeks a year. I presume that that is a form of holiday, which is generous, but it must be specified.
Paragraph 4 deals with enabling people to establish themselves as self-employed. The Government continually inform us that during the years that they have been in power, the number of self-employed has increased dramatically. Not surprisingly, Conservative Members welcome that. It is inconceivable that someone could set up a business and achieve self-employed status in eight weeks, given all the obstacles of obtaining grants, taxation, raising capital and finding premises. Apparently, if people do not have the business up and running within eight weeks, they can be denied benefit. That is extraordinary.
Paragraph 12E lists the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has good cause for refusing or failing to apply for employment or training. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) eloquently outlined the difficulties into which that could pitch people. It seems strange that we are qualifying those conditions.
Paragraph 12E(2)(a) refers to employment or training that
would be likely to … cause serious harm to his health.
The implication is that people will be disqualified from benefit for refusing work that would harm their health

unless they can prove that it will cause serious harm. What is the difference between harm and serious harm? Where is it defined how an individual will know the difference? Surely, to a significant extent, it should be for an individual and his or her doctor to decide.
Paragraph 2 refers to responsibility for the care of another member of the household. What happens if a member of an individual's close family, such as one's mother, father, grandmother or grandfather, is in need of attention and does not live in the household but lives instead in accommodation nearby and yet requires care? Apparently such a situation is excluded from the regulations.
I do not intend to talk about those regulations at any greater length, because they have already been dealt with, but it is fair to say that they form part of a pattern. As I said earlier, the assumption is that people are dishonest and do not want to work. The pattern appears designed to punish people who are unable to find work but who, in many cases in my experience, have tried hard, indeed desperately, to find work, but who have been hit from several directions. The pattern involves other attacks on people's living standards, such as housing benefit cuts and the abolition of single payments with the introduction of the social fund. All those things were basically designed to save public expenditure.
If I may be allowed to digress slightly, appalling figures about the social fund were produced at the beginning of this month showing massive under-claiming of the grants available in its annual budget. It was precisely the Government's intention to cut such expenditure when they introduced the social fund, and it has worked.
I have already arranged to meet the staff at my local DSS office to find out why there has been a 54 per cent. underspend in the Lauriston area of Glasgow. Of the £379,000 allocated budget, £205,000 remains unclaimed. In an area of multiple deprivation, with high unemployment and appalling housing, it is not credible that that figure is accurate unless people are being deliberately dissuaded from claiming. Indeed, that is the trend that the Government are encouraging. They are trying to make the people who make a claim on the state feel that they are a burden, that they are doing wrong, and that they should therefore stop claiming. That is especially harsh on the unemployed.
My final point relates to young people. Another part of the pattern relates to 16 and 17-year-olds who, with effect from September last year, have been denied income support if they are not either in work or on a youth training scheme. Again, I refer to what has happened in ray own constituency where there is a shortfall—there are 1,300 more people wanting YTS places than there are places available. Unless those young people can demonstrate severe hardship, they are denied income support. That is appalling, but it is again part of the pattern to which I have referred.
The Government can do what they like in terms of regulations, in trying to suppress the unemployment figures or to dissuade people from claiming benefit by making it as difficult as possible, but they will not fool the people of this country in the long term. They will not fool the unemployed people of this country who will bear the brunt of these hurtful, spiteful and completely unnecessary regulations on the actively seeking work condition.

Mr. John Battle: After 10 years' experience of a Conservative Government, and of the present Government in particular, perhaps we should not be surprised by the amount of time that the Government are taking to push through a tightening and reduction of benefits. It does not seem to take any time to get those things on the agenda. The machinery of government moves with remarkable speed when they want to reduce benefits or to tighten the social security structure. I say that because the Social Security Act 1989, to which these regulations refer, passed back to the House only last week and was given Royal Assent last Friday. Within hours, the regulations were before the House, and they will be law before we return from the recess.
We should be absolutely clear that the regulations on the community charge mean a benefit reduction. The Government have said that the new system will mirror the existing rebate system. However, the new system distorts the reflection because under the poll tax proposals people will get less than they get under the present rebate system.
Conservative Members have been in real difficulty with the poll tax. The Government sold it on the premise that every person had to pay, but some hon. Members asked, "What about those who are unable to pay and those who receive rebates?" The Government then decided that they would have to relax the provisions but said that everybody would have to pay at least 20 per cent. However, there is a difficulty in the provisions in the regulations. Because there is a finite and fixed figure in the income support regulations, this means in practice that, because of the average figure that has been assumed for the poll tax, some people will have to pay more than 20 per cent. That means that they will face a real reduction in their living standards because they will have to pay more than they do now under the current rebate system.
The Government seem to be carrying out a giant tax con trick. They constantly tell us that their Budgets cut personal taxation, but they are actually increasing taxation as a whole, not least by increasing indirect taxation, and now by effectively increasing local taxation. They are insisting that, if we want any residue of local government to be left in this country, everyone must pay the price because the Government are not prepared to make the contribution that they should make from the centre, from the Treasury at national level. In other words, to use the language of insurance—we may look back on the social security system wistfully as a system which did, indeed, provide national insurance—when we get to the small print, we find that the national sales pitch really means that full cover will no longer be provided because the total cover for the 20 per cent. payments will not be matched by the demands of the poll tax.
Conservative Members have woken up rather late in the day to the implications of the poll tax. Indeed, it is only in the last two weeks that they have come to the House and insisted that Ministers look again—after those same Members spent months voting for every clause in the legislation. As soon as they realised that the poll tax would hit their constituents, they were on their feet practically asking the Secretary of State to withdraw it. I am tempted to argue that if we had a re-vote and a free vote on the poll tax legislation now, there would be no poll tax and thereafter no need for these regulations.
I hope that Conservative Members will work out the figures relating to these regulations during the recess. It is not enough for them simply to protest about the poll tax, and it is certainly not enough for them to pretend that the provisions will protect the poor against its implications. If they look at the detail in relation to their constituency cases, they will find that the provisions will not do what is claimed. I am sure that Conservative Members will be back—not this autumn, but the following autumn—asking why particular cases are not getting the support that they thought had been promised when the poll tax legislation was before the House.
Perhaps the most significant of all the regulations are those relating to the new Social Security Act and especially, as my hon. Friends have said, those relating to the actively seeking work test. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) surprised me because he speaks as though he does not come from the same city as myself. He obviously does not look at the various briefs that are sent out to all Members of Parliament representing our region. He may be surprised to know that unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside is not falling as fast as elsewhere and that the chamber of commerce in our region has suggested that it is likely that unemployment will rise again. It is concerned that the so-called "hard landing" of the economy will mean that firms will go into bankruptcy and that as a result there will be redundancies in our region. I speak on behalf of a constituency in which we have seen and continue to see redundancies in textiles and engineering.
When we talk about unemployment falling, it is interesting that even under the adjusted figures—the 26 reductions and the massaging of the figures—we still have unemployment at 1·9 million. It is higher than it ever was under any Labour Government, yet the Red Book—the basis for this year's Budget—says that unemployment is not expected to continue falling as rapidly. In other words, the Government's Budget presumptions are that unemployment will rise again and not go down as it has in the past.

Mr. Burns: indicated dissent.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) shakes his head. He should read paragraph 4 of the Red Book, where the presumption is that unemployment will not continue falling at the rates at which it has, if indeed it falls at all.

Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Battle: I will not give way, because the hon. Gentleman would not do me the courtesy of giving way. In future he may like to do his homework before he tries to rebut an argument. I shall come to the points that he made in his contribution.
The hon. Gentleman appeared to create the impression that the regulations before the House will introduce a whole new system to coerce the unemployed into taking jobs. Does he really believe that nobody has been denied unemployment benefit under the current system? People have to he available for work now and they lose benefit if they are not available for work. The hon. Gentleman created the impression that there were no existing regulations making people go for jobs, because the key change in the Bill is the insistence that a person must accept a job regardless of the pay offered. The


Government are going down the road of pricing people into low-paid work. The regulations cannot be read other than as tightening even further, in a most unhelpful manner, the social security coercion for people to work, especially in areas of high unemployment.
Those who fall foul of the new actively seeking work rule will lose not only unemployment benefit, but the income support safety net. I suggest to hon. Members that there are already problems, because people who breach the £5 rule, for example, or who are doing voluntary work for more than a particular number of hours, are already being cut out of the benefit system. Those people have no income while they wait for their cases on appeal.
I ask the Minister to look at paragraph 2 of regulation 6, which lists the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has taken steps which are reasonable. I accept that we pressed in Committee for such things as the amount of time spent on voluntary work or on seeking accommodation to be taken into consideration, but if they are to be taken into consideration, the onus is all on the adjudication officer. The adjudication officer will have the daunting task of investigating all the points in that list before he can make a decision.
To choose one item from the list at random, how would the adjudication officer ascertain the claimant's "mental limitations" in assessing whether he is accepting the right job? Will the Minister spell out what the phrase "mental limitations" would mean in particular circumstances? The paragraph in the regulation offers no real protection, because, when the list of factors is taken into account, the adjudication officer will still have complete discretion to decide whether the person has taken steps which are reasonable. In practice, that means that although the Minister is saying that he has confidence in the ability of his Department's staff, he is shuffling off the responsibilities in the regulations into the ambit of the adjudication officers and the appeals tribunals. That will make it bad law, because we shall be back to the position of going through case studies as we contest the regulations, rather than having the matter made clear in primary law and in regulations.
In Committee we debated whether a person would have to accept any job on offer, no matter how little pay was offered. If people are offered wages that they cannot live on and they refuse them, they will be disqualified. It seems that the Government calculate pay solely on the basis of the average wage, which at present is running at £258 per week. Few of my constituents are on £258 per week. This week in the job centre in Bramley town centre, the wages offered for most jobs are just above wages council levels. I remind the Minister that the wages council level for the textile industry is £1·90 per hour, and jobs in catering and in shops are offered at wages below wages council levels.
In other words, if jobs are on offer at much less than £80 a week and a person turns down such a job, the Government are saying that in some circumstances, if the family loses its access to unemployment benefit, it could be worse off. The Government are now prepared to accept that situation to price people into work and to save the benefit system money. That is from a Government who, only in March, told the House that they had saved £14 billion in public expenditure, which they did not dare spend because it might have had an inflationary effect.
I submit that this is not just a tightening up regulation, but it is at the core of the Social Security Act 1989, as it will become known. What the Government are doing is

unbelievable. They are knowingly pricing people into work. Like the poll tax, it may he that people, especially Conservative Members, will only realise what is happening when it is too late—when they have voted and their constituents go to their surgeries to ask them what the Government are doing. The Minister may reply then that it is just a few individual hard cases. The chance to tackle hard cases is now. It is not a matter of hard cases. The Minister and the Government are deliberately changing the social security structure.
Under the regulations, that social security structure is clearly stacked against unemployed people. To price people into work will have the impact of compounding a two-tier economy, in which some of us may have reasonably well-paid jobs with some future prospects and security, but the rest of the nation will be forced into low-paid, temporary and part-time work. The Government are deliberately going down that road.
We saw the speed with which the Minister was prepared to move on the issue of the mobility allowance. When we pressed for people to have access to that allowance, the Minister said that he needed time to do more research to see what the implications were for Government policy, for the Budget and for claimants. I suggest to the Minister that he might like to carry out some detailed work on wage rates in Britain, and especially in the Yorkshire region. He might like to do some detailed work on the implications and interworking of the family credit and income support systems.
He should tell us that he is prepared to reconsider the matter and that he will withdraw the regulations. If he does not, the Government will be left with regulations containing punitive and blunt instruments which will force the number of unemployed down by pricing them into the low-paid temporary sector. When the Government try to offer us the language of choice, they are really offering people the coercion for which the Government, despite their Cabinet reshuffle, are now becoming well known, and which the people of Britain are clearly rejecting.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I had not intended to speak, but I have been provoked into doing so by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. At the beginning, he set out a range of suggestions and detailed objections to the criteria for evaluating whether a claimant is genuinely and actively seeking work. When I listened to that part of his speech, I wondered whether the hon. Member had accepted the basic principle that lies behind these regulations and was trying to be helpful. I thought that by suggesting adjustments to the criteria, so that a decision can more fairly and precisely be made about whether an individual claimant is sincerely looking for work, the hon. Gentleman might be making a useful contribution to the workability of the regulations and to the justice with which they will be enforced—or was the hon. Member contesting the basic principle behind these regulations?
Later in the hon. Gentleman's speech, it became evident that he objects to the whole principle, so we should consider some of his detailed suggestions and criticisms in that light. We are entitled to ask whether some of those suggestions, put very reasonably and with great ingenuity


—qualities that we associate with the hon. Member—were not wrecking suggestions, designed to undermine the basic principle of the legislation.
What is that basic principle Mr. Deputy—Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg your pardon. It is that it cannot be in the interests of an individual, or of society, to give a man or woman a financial inducement to do nothing when he or she has the ability to do an honest day's work. That seems to me to be a fundamental moral and economic principle. I will give way to any Opposition Member who wants to dispute the basis of that principle.
We must ask ourselves whether we should take seriously some of the hon. Member's objections. If we do not take them seriously, I believe that we should support the Government in producing a sophisticated set of criteria to ensure that that basic principle is delivered into our social security legislation.

Mr. Ian McCartney: In Wigan, we recently elected a lady mayor and she has introduced a system of fines for people who call her Mr. Mayor. The fines go to charities. I think that we should introduce a similar system in the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, for each occasion that you are called Mr. Deputy Speaker. By the end of the Session, we would be able to put quite a lot of money towards certain charities.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Perhaps for sacked Cabinet Ministers—a very good cause.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.
Regarding incentives and disincentives, Conservative Members' arguments have been based on a crude analysis of job vacancies. They have asked why there are so many vacancies, and why so many people are unable or unwilling to seek employment. We have also heard, again on the basis of crude analyses, that, throughout the country, there is a huge army of unemployed people who are unwilling to take jobs at any cost.
I take that as a grave insult to tens of thousands of working men and women throughout the United Kingdom but especially to people in many Opposition Members' constituencies. We represent people who, because of Government policies, find themselves and their families thrown on the industrial scrap heap. Since the miners' strike, three collieries have been closed in my constituency. Since the end of that strike, some miners have transferred to three separate collieries because they wanted to continue in employment but they have been put on the dole this summer because there are no more pits for them to go to. There are no more jobs for them. They are in the humiliating situation of being placed on the dole. That is a direct result of Government intervention, in privatising electricity and driving down the price of coal.
Many single-parent families in my constituency, mainly women, have a great disincentive to find work, because of the Government's legislation. If they find work they cannot take it up. I shall give evidence of that later in my speech.
If the Government cared less about the Civil List and more about the problems of the poorest in our society, this House might do the nation a proper service. The

Government are hounding the unemployed and people on poor wages. They have been preparing the market, and distorting it, to ensure that we have a large pool of unskilled people that can be tapped any time the market chooses. In the intervening period, they ensure that the level of benefit is reduced, or is at such a level that people cannot remove themselves from the poverty trap.
Many people in my constituency have been brutalised by poverty. Some have been driven to crime by poverty. A prime example is a constituent who was taken to the magistrates court for breaking into his electricity meter. Everyone says, "What a terrible thing to do." He was acquitted on the grounds that he broke into the meter after he had an offer of a job in Aberdeen—he had been unemployed for over 18 months—and, because of changes brought in by the Government, the social security office would not give him a ticket to travel to Aberdeen to take the job. He became a criminal, in an effort to buy a train ticket to take that job. Thank God the magistrates on the bench had sympathy for that man's case.
That is how far many young working people are prepared to go. They are trapped in the benefit system and a life of poverty. They have little real opportunity for jobs that will enable them and their families to get out of the poverty trap.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) mentioned job vacancies in Chelmsford, where employers are unable to find people to take jobs. That is a growing problem throughout Britain. People are unable to move to take jobs because of Government policies.
The changes in social security policy cannot be seen in isolation. The Government have driven up mortgage interest rates to the point where people cannot afford to move house. They have introduced the Local Government Housing Act 1989, to double rents in the private sector. They have introduced legislation to close many hostels for young people, who move from one part of the country to another to find work. They have driven up travelling costs to and from work.
In the autumn, the Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am a member, will examine Government social security policies. We have already sought evidence on Government policy and incentives and disincentives from local authorities and bodies such as citizens advice bureaux, the Child Poverty Action Group and Government Departments.
In the light of all these political disincentives, the arguments of the hon. Member for Chelmsford must be challenged. He and many of his hon. Friends must come up with an answer to that challenge. We have received evidence from citizens advice bureaux throughout the country. I will tell him why there are job vacancies in places such as Chelmsford. It is not that unemployed people are not prepared to take those jobs, but that current social security arrangements operate to ensure that they cannot take them.
I shall cite just one example from the CAB's evidence. A middle-aged man in Sheffield could not take a job offer in London because he was refused a loan for rent on the ground that, as he already had an overdraft, he could not repay a social fund loan. Claimants who need to move house to take up work receive little help from the social fund. Removal expenses incurred if a claimant has to move house to take up work are excluded as specifically work-related. Under the previous supplementary benefit rules, a single payment could have been made for removal


expenses, thus improving the claimant's chance of finding work and taking up a job offer. The Government have created a disincentive for people to take up employment opportunities, yet the hon. Member for Chelmsford and his hon. Friends berate them for not being more mobile in trying to get back into the labour market.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman said that he would answer my constituents' question about why there was both a labour and a skills shortage in Chelmsford. Unfortunately, he has not done so—[Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will let me finish my question. The hon. Gentleman cited the example of a man who would not move from Sheffield to London. I accept that he had a serious problem, but it does not answer the question asked by 1,700 of my constituents who are unemployed at a time when there is a serious shortage of people to work in the local companies of Chelmsford.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman raises two points, with which I shall deal in a moment.
There is a serious distortion in the labour market, not just in the availability of jobs but in the types of job, the availability of training and the opportunity for people's skills to be matched to job vacancies. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I could go to my local jobcentre—not a mile and a half from two collieries that have recently closed—and ask about opportunities for the 700 miners who have lost their jobs. I could guarantee that, other than a small number of those miners, they all want to find jobs commensurate with their skills and abilities.
For the past 10 years, the Government have failed to provide proper arrangements for skills training for the country's work force. Indeed, there has been a de-skilling exercise, the like of which has not been seen in the remainder of the western world. That de-skilling policy has resulted in a shortfall of people able to contribute to the economy. That is as true in Chelmsford as it is in Wigan. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Chelmsford is only too ready to vote for those policies.
The regulations will not improve employment opportunities for the unemployed and those in low-paid jobs. The Government are good at targeting people, and they regularly amend the benefit regulations—not to improve opportunities, but to reduce the number of people able to claim benefit. The Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box seven or eight times specifically to amend housing benefit regulations. On each occasion he turned the screw so that a few thousand more pensioners or unemployed or low-paid workers could not claim housing benefit.
A large number of women want to return to work, not just for family reasons but for their personal satisfaction. They form a large, untapped pool of skills and mental capacity. They are prevented from entering the labour market because of the Government's social security policy, especially on child-care facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) rightly raised the problem of the regulations acting as a clear disincentive for women to accept opportunities in the job market.
A constituent of mine was prepared to take any job, provided that she was given 24 hours' notice so that she could arrange to put her two children into a nursery. The social worker gave a guarantee to the benefit office that he would do everything in his power to arrange child-care facilities, even if only temporary at first, so that the woman

could begin work. That would have provided some breathing space to arrange long-term child care. That woman was offered a job. She said that she could not start that morning but would ask her mother to look after the children so that she could start in the afternoon. She was prepared to take the job. That woman's benefit has been stopped.
Tory Members take the high moral ground. They say that they are not in the business of hounding ordinary people. They find their excuses in legislation. All that woman asked for was a few more hours to arrange child care. That is what she told the adjudication officer, and Tory Members should think about what happened to her. I sometimes wonder just where some of the adjudication officers come from. When they go home at night, do they think about some of the decisions that they have made? Are they aware that they have sometimes wrecked people's lives? They create anxiety and stress in families already overstretched by poverty.
The Minister says, "Don't worry about it; everything is rosy in the garden. Those people have a great deal of latitude under the regulations." The truth is that there is no latitude. Many of those operating the social security system have a great deal of compassion and they are under stress because they must carry out their duties in a way that affects ordinary working people. Indeed, many of those officers live in the same community as those who are in desperate need of help.
The CAB submitted evidence about child-care costs to the Select Committee. It said:
A single parent in Birmingham with one child aged 4 had a part-time job of 20 hours per week, for which she earned £40 a week. She had to pay £1·50 per hour for her child to be taken care of, making a total cost of £30 per week. As a single parent, £15 of her earnings are disregarded, but she was still £15 per week worse off by working—so she gave up her job. She had hoped to extend her hours once her child started school—but she has now lost that opportunity.
That woman was working for 50p an hour. Can anyone come nearer to saying, "My God, I want to work. I want to do my part for the nation"? Would the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies)—the merchant banker—work for 50p an hour? Come on, would you work for 50p an hour? [Interruption.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding. He would not work for 50p an hour.
That woman is but one of tens—perhaps hundreds—of thousands of women who are suffering not because they do not want to work or because they are indifferent to society, but because of the Government's social security regulations. It is a national scandal. Indeed, even the Government are embarrassed by some of their legislation. They try to introduce it in short debates late into the night at the end of the summer term in the hope of hiding what they are doing. They do not want the public to know what is happening.
The Government are at war with many of our citizens—those who cannot defend themselves, such as single-parent families and unemployed youngsters. People in the north-west, the north, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are unemployed because of the Government's policy of disinvestment in industry. They take a hands-off attitude. They are the victims of Government policy, and when the Government have made


them victims, they attack them for their inability to seek employment and say that they are trying to earn from the state a living to which they are not entitled.
I am not angry just at the fact that the Government are prepared to allow that to continue. What makes me more angry is that Conservative Back Benchers who had well-heeled jobs, who were born with silver spoons in their mouths and who never had to worry about the school or the job of their choice, where they could work, at what rate of pay and about when they could change jobs, do not know about reality. They have no experience of living in a community racked by poverty. As a Member of Parliament, I have had experience of living in such a community. Conservative callousness is born not just of ignorance but out of total indifference to the plight of Britain's poor, the 6 million-plus who live in a twilight world.
The final condemnation of the Government must be the youngsters who sleep not a mile from this place in cardboard city. They get up in the morning, walk to the jobcentre in Victoria street and wait for the doors to open to get a day's work in a London hotel. They work for a few pennies and when they have finished work, sometimes at midnight and sometimes at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, they go back under their cardboard blankets. That exercise is repeated day in and day out; that is the reality of the Government's policy towards the poor and towards poverty.
There is no denying that reality, and the Government cannot get away from it. We can all go down the road to Victoria street. If the Minister thinks that I am exaggerating, he should come with me and my hon. Friends to Victoria street jobcentre to see the displaced, the unemployed and the poor who are standing there. I invite him to come with us to cardboard city and to other cities in the country where people are living in the streets, forced out by the Government's system. Perhaps when the Minister sees what the Government have done and meets the people, he will ask the victims what they think about the Government's system. He should meet those people face to face and not hide behind statistics presented at the Dispatch Box. He should ask them if they enjoy living under a cardboard box. He could also ask them if they enjoy begging from a porter at the back door of a hotel for a few hours work washing plates just to survive.
When the Minister has had that experience, perhaps the next time he comes to the Dispatch Box he will not have the same frame of mind and steely attitude towards the poor. Perhaps after that the Government will come up with a system to replace the dirty rotten system that is operating now. Perhaps they will give all our kids a real opportunity in life and all our women a genuine opportunity for a job at a wage that they can afford to take. If that happens, we can really talk about opportunity for everybody in Britain.
Until the Government do that, opportunities will not exist for hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people. Unless the Government change their attitude, we in the Opposition will continue our campaign of harassment until we get rid of them and replace them with a system and a group of people who are prepared to put in front of those who want to work an opportunity and a system that will allow them to do so.

Mr. Scott: We shall have to endure with as much fortitude as we can muster the continued harassment of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and his hon. Friends. The caricature that he paints of this country is totally removed from reality. Every section of the population has seen rises in living standards as a result of the successful economic policies that we have pursued for the past 10 years. We expect that to continue.
Much of the debate was taken up by hon. Members going over the principles behind the Social Security Act 1989 rather than dealing with the details of the regulations which implement those principles. I am grateful for the robust support that we have had from my hon. Friends. I shall sum up briefly and deal with just two or three matters raised in the debate. As hon. Members know, there is no opportunity to amend delegated legislation of this sort and we have to take the regulations as they stand.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) spoke a great deal about over-payments and criticised the present system. She seemed to object to the fact that over-paid benefit may be recovered as if it were community charge arrears. The only amounts that can be recovered are those which are deemed to be recoverable. Any over-payments that arise through mistakes by the Department would not be recoverable in any case. The ability to recover over-payments and to do it by a small addition to the monthly instalments would be an easy way to repay the debt.
The hon. Lady spoke about the fear of imprisonment, but the only circumstances in which imprisonment could possibly be imposed on anybody are those in which a person had the means to pay the community charge but wilfully refused to do so. The hon. Lady also spoke about people who are fit for light work and those who sign on for credits only. There is no question of such people being challenged week in and week out about actively seeking work. She knows, because we went over it all in Committee in great detail, about the arrangements for initial advice and the subsequent updating of that advice if necessary. There is no question of our setting out in any circumstances to submit people to weekly tests. The hon. Lady well knows that the signing cycle is fortnightly and not weekly.

Mrs. Beckett: As the Minister says, we discussed these matters in Committee. He will know that in Committee we repeated over and over again that what he says is how he thinks the regulations will be interpreted and how the employment service will use them. What the Minister says is not what the law and the regulations say.

Mr. Scott: As I have said in the House more than once, we can look to the employment service to interpret the regulations in a sensible, fair and flexible manner.
As I say, the hon. Lady spoke about light work. The regulations explicitly recognise physical limitations and the type of work to which people can be guided must take account of such limitations. As the hon. Lady knows, credits-only signers attend the office only quarterly after they have been accepted for signing on, and there is no question of them being asked to discuss these matters weekly or more regularly.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) recognise the valuable contribution of job clubs. I am delighted that they are a success. Inevitably, in


such an initiative, the pattern is uneven across the country. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman's experience is typical of the experience of job clubs elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Derby, South asked whether participation in a job club would be taken as evidence of someone actively seeking work. In essence, of itself it might not, but I think that it would be a very important piece of evidence to be considered about the attitude of mind of the person concerned. If the person was also taking other steps, it would certainly add up to that. I can think of few better things than an unemployed person wanting to get back into employment could do than to join a job club and avail himself of its facilities.
Some other matters were raised during the debate, but I do not want to weary the House by responding to all of them, because I think that the House is anxious to vote on the regulations. They implement the admirable principles which underline important sections of the Social Security Act. In a year or two, when Opposition Members look back at the speeches that they have made today, they will realise just how wrong they were.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]

Motion made and Question put:—
That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 139.

Division No. 323]
[7.59 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Allason, Rupert
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amos, Alan
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Atkinson, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, W.
Eggar, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Emery, Sir Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Farr, Sir John


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Dame Janet


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Franks, Cecil


Buck, Sir Antony
Freeman, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gow, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)





Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Powell, William (Corby)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Price, Sir David


Ground, Patrick
Raffan, Keith


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hague, William
Rathbone, Tim


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Redwood, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rhodes James, Robert


Hanley, Jeremy
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Harris, David
Rowe, Andrew


Hayes, Jerry
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hill, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Speller, Tony


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunter, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Irvine, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Michael
Stern, Michael


Janman, Tim
Stevens, Lewis


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Summerson, Hugo


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Knox, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Latham, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lilley, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Trippier, David


McCrindle, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maclean, David
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Walden, George


Miller, Sir Hal
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mills, Iain
Waller, Gary


Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wells, Bowen


Morrison, Sir Charles
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Neubert, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wolfson, Mark


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wood, Timothy


Page, Richard
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Paice, James
Yeo, Tim


Patnick, Irvine



Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Porter, Barry (Wirral S)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Alton, David
Bidwell, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Blunkett, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Buckley, George J.


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Battle, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beckett, Margaret
Clelland, David


Bell, Stuart
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coleman, Donald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)






Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McGrady, Eddie


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maclennan, Robert


Cousins, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Maginnis, Ken


Darling, Alistair
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Meacher, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morgan, Rhodri


Eadie, Alexander
Morley, Elliot


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


wing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Fearn, Ronald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galloway, George
Prescott, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Richardson, Jo


Gordon, Mildred
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rogers, Allan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Salmond, Alex


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Clare


Hinchliffe, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Home Robertson, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hoyle, Doug
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Ingram, Adam
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Vaz, Keith


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wall, Pat


Kennedy, Charles
Wallace, James


Kilfedder, James
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kirkwood, Archy
Wareing, Robert N.


Leadbitter, Ted
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Leighton, Ron
Winnick, David


Lewis, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Litherland, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Livsey, Richard
Wray, Jimmy


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


McAllion, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


McAvoy, Thomas



McCartney, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lords amendment considered.

Clause 3

THE PRESIDENT

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 18, leave out from "be" to "by" in line 20 and insert—

"(a) a President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the President"),
(b) a Vice-President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the Vice-President"), and
(c) a panel of chairmen of the Fair Employment Tribunal,

who shall each be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall exercise the functions respectively conferred on them"

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 17, 20 to 22, 75 to 77 and 81.

Mr. King: These are technical amendments which carry out understandings conveyed in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 10

SURVEY OF EMPLOYMENT, ETC., PATTERNS

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 7, line 28, at end insert—
(2) It shall also be the duty of the Commission to keep itself informed about proceedings on complaints under Part III of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.

Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 19.

Mr. King: These amendments are designed to cover a situation in which an individual case of discrimination is heard before the tribunal and, irrespective of the outcome, there are indications in the evidence or in the decision that the respondent may be failing properly to afford equality of opportunity. Lords amendment No. 18 makes it a positive duty on the commission to keep itself informed about such matters; and Lords amendment No. 19 enables the commission, when it has formed an opinion that equality of opportunity is not being afforded, to inform the person concerned of its opinion and to allow that person to give a written undertaking to take appropriate action.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: We disagree. It might be for the benefit of the House if I spelt out in a simple example exactly what the Lords amendment is designed to tackle.
An employer could decide to exercise a preference in favour of people who were not residents of west Belfast, or in favour of those who were, thus offering less favourable treatment to Catholics, or to Protestants. As long as that preference was not an absolute ban on the employment of people from west Belfast, or absolutely in favour of them, it would be legal, and that clearly undermines the intention of the legislation.
The reason for this strange situation is that a complainant can prove a case of indirect discrimination only if he can show that the barrier that has prevented him from securing the post in question is a requirement or a condition—something which is absolute; and the courts have interpreted requirement or condition narrowly.
There are two well-known cases in this regard—Meer and Pereira—which have been dealt with in the Court of Appeal. In both, a narrow interpretation was applied under which, in order to show indirect discrimination, the complainant must show that the behaviour of the employer constitutes an absolute bar to his employment—anything less is not direct discrimination. I am sorry to have taken so long with this introduction, but it is the context in which the amendments must be considered.
The Government have recognised that the original version of the Bill would condone many of the practices that they claimed it would eradicate, but we are not satisfied that the Government have done enough to deal with the problem which they accept exists. The easiest and most satisfactory method would have been to amend the definition so that preferences such as the one that I have cited would be outlawed. The Government refuse to do that, presumably because they are worried that such a strengthening of the Bill would lead to demands for reform of the race and sex discrimination legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom.
We think that this is a weak case because we should like both the cases I have cited to be upset under sex and race legislation for the United Kingdom. We understood the Government's difficulties, although we do not accept them, so we have been much concerned to arrive at an agreement with them on this matter. We proposed a compromise measure, an amendment which would allow the fair employment tribunal in cases in which such discriminatory preference were visible to recommend that the respondent take action to provide equality of opportunity. In other words, an employer would not be obliged to pay compensation, but he would have to put a stop to such practices. That would solve the Government's worry about the read-over to the United Kingdom, it would undermine the principle in the cases that I have mentioned and it would ensure that the matter was properly dealt with.
The Government decided to reject our moderate approach and have instead tabled these defective amendments, in which they have placed a duty on the Fair Employment Commission to follow the proceedings of the tribunal and to issue an opinion that the employer should take action to provide equality of opportunity on the basis of the evidence heard by the tribunal. Quite apart from the administrative difficulties, that is not an effective solution, for a number of reasons.
The tribunal will be obliged to give a clean bill of health to an employer who is obviously discriminating. That decision will be reported in the media and will convince employers that indirect discriminatory behaviour is perfectly lawful. "Decision not to employ Shankill man

upheld" would be the headline, and the article would not go into the finer points of preference and absolute conditions.
At the same time, the Government's solution opens a virtual certainty of a clash between the jurisprudence of the tribunal and the enforcement and encouragement role of the Fair Employment Commission. The tribunal will be obliged to condone as legal the practices that the commission will be trying to end and which it will be spelling out in its code for employers as undesirable employment practices. There will be unacceptable confusion about where employers stand. That confusion will discourage employers from taking action to provide equality of opportunity.
The powers of the commission to require an employer to take remedial action on the basis of the evidence presented to the tribunal will be severely limited. As the Secretary of State said, the commission may, on the basis of the evidence, ask an employer to give a voluntary undertaking. If the employer refuses, the commission can take action only if it launches a full-scale investigation. That is an extremely cumbersome method of dealing with a case in which the facts have already been established.
I do not believe that the Government have grasped the importance of the issue. That became apparent in another place on 11 July when the former Minister, Lord Lyell, cited as one of the major reasons for the refusal to change the definition the fact that the Bill was concerned primarily with eradicating bad employment practices, not with technicalities, but unfortunately the technicalities add up.
shall make two points about that. First, the prohibition of indirect discrimination places a legal barrier on bad employment practices. The lower the barrier, the easier it will be for bad and discriminatory employment practices to continue. Secondly, the Minister in the other place appeared to believe that the definition of indirect discrimination is a simple matter of importance for the individual complainant, but that is not the case. It is of the utmost importance and relevance for the collective aspects of the Bill as the practices that will be lawful depend on that definition and will be cumulative.
For those reasons, the Opposition believe that we must register our protest against the Government's unwillingness to take the problem of indirect discrimination as seriously as they should.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 105.

Division No. 324]
[8.22 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Allason, Rupert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alton, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amos, Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Tony
Budgen, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Burns, Simon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butler, Chris


Beggs, Roy
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)






Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lilley, Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
McCrindle, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Maclean, David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Miller, Sir Hal


Cope, Rt Hon John
Mills, Iain


Cormack, Patrick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Couchman, James
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Morrison, Sir Charles


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony


Dorrell, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Dover, Den
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Durant, Tony
Nicholls, Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Emery, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Favell, Tony
Paice, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fishburn, John Dudley
Patnick, Irvine


Fookes, Dame Janet
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Forman, Nigel
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forth, Eric
Portillo, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Raffan, Keith


Freeman, Roger
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


French, Douglas
Redwood, John


Gale, Roger
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ryder, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gregory, Conal
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Shersby, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Ground, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hague, William
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Speller, Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hanley, Jeremy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hannam, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Steen, Anthony


Harris, David
Stern, Michael


Hay hoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Stevens, Lewis


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hill, James
Summerson, Hugo


Hind, Kenneth
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hunter, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Jack, Michael
Trippier, David


Janman, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jessel, Toby
Viggers, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Walden, George


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Kilfedder, James
Waller, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wells, Bowen


Knox, David
Wheeler, John


Latham, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Lawrence, Ivan
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Lee, John (Pendle)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Wolfson, Mark





Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Yeo, Tim





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Anderson, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kennedy, Charles


Armstrong, Hilary
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashton, Joe
Leadbitter, Ted


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Leighton, Ron


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Litherland, Robert


Battle, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Margaret
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bell, Stuart
Loyden, Eddie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McAvoy, Thomas


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McCartney, Ian


Boateng, Paul
McGrady, Eddie


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Buckley, George J.
McNamara, Kevin


Caborn, Richard
McWilliam, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Madden, Max


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clelland, David
Meacher, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Michael, Alun


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cousins, Jim
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Morley, Elliot


Cummings, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Darling, Alistair
Mowlam, Marjorie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Patchett, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alexander
Richardson, Jo


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Rogers, Allan


Fatchett, Derek
Short, Clare


Fearn, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Flannery, Martin
Steel, Rt Hon David


Flynn, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Foster, Derek
Wall, Pat


Galloway, George
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Gordon, Mildred
Wareing, Robert N.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wilson, Brian


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Winnick, David


Hinchliffe, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Worthington, Tony


Home Robertson, John
Wray, Jimmy


Hood, Jimmy



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hoyle, Doug
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Ingram, Adam

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos.19 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 31

ENQUIRIES BY THE COMMISSION

Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 24, line 7, at beginning insert
The Commission may from time to time require the employer to give the Commission such information held by the employer, being information to which section 29(1)(a) or (b) of this Act applies, as the Commission may specify; but an employer who has been required on any date to give any information under this subsection shall not be required to do so again before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with that date.
(1A)

Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 44.

Mr. King: The amendments extend the powers of the commission to require the disclosure of information by the employer. The existing power hinged on the employer's having submitted a monitoring return, and extended only to information supplementing that given in the return. We have released the commission from both those constraints.
Accordingly, the amendment provides that the commission can obtain from the employer any of the information which he might use for monitoring. Thus, where an employer who is not required to monitor applicants holds information on job applicants, the commission will be able to gain access to that information.
The second effect of the amendment is that the commission can exercise its powers whether or not a monitoring return has been submitted. This is to avoid an employer who has neglected to submit a return attempting to get out of disclosing information to the commission on the point that under the Bill as drafted its powers came into play only following submission of a monitoring return.
There are certain restrictions on the commission's total powers of inquiry. We have restricted it to six-monthly intervals. Although the commission has extensive powers of inquiry of employers, a balance must be struck. It is wrong that employers should be continually subjected to repeat inquiries. Therefore, we have set the six-monthly intervals.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has argued that the commission's powers should not be so restricted. I know that he will he concerned to achieve credibility for the commission and the voluntary co-operation of employers. There must be some recognition of the fair interests of employers. The commission has no restraint. If it behaved in an unreasonable way, a climate would be created in which people would justifiably feel unwilling to co-operate in reasonable inquiries. We do not believe that the commission would abuse its powers, but we think that, in giving it wide powers, there should be some restriction and protection in these respects for the employer. That is why I do not encourage the House to support the amendment tabled by the hon Member for South Down. I ask the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: The Opposition disagree with the Minister's interpretation of this group of amendments, especially No. 38. We argue that the practical implications of the amendment will restrict the ability of the Fair Employment Commission to require employers to supply information. We see it as another example of a Government attempt to restrict the commission's role and we find it unacceptable.
At present, the commission may, after the monitoring return has been received, require an employer to produce further information, as the Minister has outlined. The Commission could, for instance, request a breakdown of the composition of the work force by grade and could then require further details, perhaps to verify that information. We argue that amendment No. 38 will prevent the commission, once the initial request is made, from asking for supplementary information for a further six months.

That would be a serious hindrance for the commission in verifying the monitoring returns. It is an incentive to less enlightened employers to prevaricate and obstruct the commission's work. We certainly accept that it is a balancing between the two forces, but we think that, in practical terms, the amendment will work in exactly the opposite way to the Minister's proposal. We therefore oppose amendment No. 38.
The Minister has claimed that the amendment extends the commission's powers in some senses, as it can request information beyond that laid down in the monitoring returns and will be able to ask for information even when a monitoring return has not been submitted. However, we believe that the practical effect of the six-monthly interval will he to constrain the commission's ability to pursue its inquiries unless it resorts to a full-scale investigation. We understand that a full-scale investigation can take place only in limited circumstances and is, by necessity, a cumbersome process. It would not provide an adequate method of dealing with obstructive employers.
We are concerned about amendment No. 39 because it prevents the commission from requiring employers to produce supplementary information about the composition of the work force other than the information relating to the way in which the monitoring returns were compiled. That is an unacceptable limitation on the commission's information-gathering role. Therefore, we will oppose amendment No. 38.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: In presenting Lords amendment No. 38 the Minister made generous reference to my starred amendment which appears on the Amendment Paper but has not been selected. I agree Chat it would be improper to impose on employers unjust obligations and unnecessary trouble in making these returns to the Fair Employment Commission.
Lords amendment No. 38 provides that an employer who has been asked for information in the previous six months cannot be asked for "any" information within the ensuing six months. That means that if information is received from an employer that is not explicit or adequate and does not address the point that it should address, the commission may not ask for supplementary information to provide elucidation. That is why I object to the word "any". I have tried to provide a more practical arrangement by substituting the word "that". That would ensure that the commission would not repeat itself in asking for the same information, but it would have the ability to ask for additional information to process the information received in the first volley.
This is an inhibiting administrative defect in the commission's power to pursue for six months the information for which it legally and legitimately asks under the Bill. It would have a stultifying effect on the processing of cases. For that reason, and because of the broader points of principle lucidly stated by the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Mowlam), I oppose amendment No. 38 in its present form.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Evidently, information will be stored somewhere from which it can be made available when requested, but that was not the promise made to employees in Northern Ireland. They were told that after they gave the required information about their religion, schools and so on and after the quota was made


up, all the information would be destroyed. Now we are told that this information will be stored and will be available to the commission if requested. I should like to know who else will get his hands on that information.
As we know, there is a serious security situation in Northern Ireland. Information like this leads to people being fingered and murdered. The Government have a duty to tell us who has that information. Is it destroyed? Is the undertaking given to employees not really an undertaking but a falsehood? Will this information always be available so that it can then be made available to the commission when it requires it?

Dr. John G. Blackburn: I had the opportunity, like many hon. Members, of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill. I think that, on quiet reflection, Members who served will say that matters were debated in a way that brought particular distinction to the House of Commons.
There was general acceptance in Committee that the most important part of the Bill concerned the commission's complete impartiality and its important role. In my judgment, Lords amendment No. 38 is the cornerstone of the Bill. There must be faith and trust in the workings of the commission. If there is not, the Bill will fall into disrepute, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has outlined. It is important that there are some qualifications to it. Having had the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee, I believe that we should accept the amendment because it shows the weight and force of argument that are placed on the workings of the commission.
I am particularly attracted to the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on safeguards for this information. I stress that there will be a great cry throughout the Province and in the House to ensure that the commission's reports and findings are confidential.
I should like to pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who served with particular distinction as the Minister on the Bill. In addition, this is almost certainly the valediction of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), as he takes up his new appointment. I wish him success.

Mr. William Ross: When I listened to the comments of hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, I had the impression that they, and to a lesser extent the Government, were behaving and talking as if there were a vast army of employers in Northern Ireland who spent all their time dreaming up ways to get past laws against discrimination and who were continually and assiduously practising discrimination at every level of employment and in every way they could. In revealing that attitude of mind, they betray the vast gulf between their views and the reality of society in Northern Ireland.
I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he talked about information lying around and being liable to be consulted by other people, some of whom might be of evil intent. Will the departing Secretary of State, before he becomes the departed Secretary of State, tell us whether the Data Protection Act 1984 has any bearing on this information?

Will this information be stored in hard form on paper, or is it to be stored on computer? The House and employers want to know that. Will the existing laws governing such information and its storage be transgressed in any way?
Some will say that the Bill is not sufficient. However, having passed the first group of amendments, it will lie permanently in the hands of the House to correct any deficiencies that become apparent. I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) turned down the point we accepted at the beginning of this debate. As shown in columns 65 to 66 of Hansard for Standing Committee B, in refusing to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), he said that the reason he could not accept it was that it could be a devolved matter. Since the House and the Government have accepted the point this evening, it is clear that the Government accept that there will never be a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, at least into the far future. As a result, it will always lie in the hands of Ministers of whichever party, for the political lifetime of all here, to make any changes they wish.

Mr. Tom King: With all courtesy, I disagree with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). We discussed the matter a great deal in Committee and she fairly referred today to the point about balance. I have in my previous incarnations debated with Opposition Members the question of balance. The endless pursuit of perfection in legislation has often been the Opposition's objective and they have often not given sufficient consideration to whether such legislation will work. We can pass amazing legislation and Bills of huge complexity, but if they are ineffective or too complicated and do not achieve their objectives, it is a pointless exercise. It is a question of judgment, and we have reached the judgment that our proposals are a sensible way to proceed. I know that the hon. Lady will agree with me—this picks up a point made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)—that our proposals will work better if employers come to regard them as a reasonable and sensible requirement.
I could recognise one or two employers in the Province of Northern Ireland who may not rush to carry forward to the ultimate the general principles of the Bill, but there will be many others who are willing to see what they can do, as long as the legislation is reasonable and not hopelessly over-bureaucratic. We have to strike a balance because we do not want to lose their support.
Although the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) dressed it up in rather more lurid colours, he made an important point about confidentiality. He will know that confidentiality of information has been a clear concern of the Government in the preparation of this legislation. He knows that clause 19 is directed specifically to that important point. Clause 19 makes it an offence to disclose information from which a person's religious beliefs could be deduced.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also asked me about the Data Protection Act 1984. I can confirm that the Act applies if such information is stored on computers.

Mr. William Ross: Will that point be made clear to all employers?

Mr. King: We shall take steps to try to ensure that employers are aware of all the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps the word "we" is a rather broad description of


those who will seek to carry the proposals through. However, I know that we have been anxious—and I am sure that others will be equally anxious—to ensure that information and helpful advice is given to ensure the successful implementation of this legislation. Against that background, I urge the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 89.

Division No. 325]
[8.55 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
French, Douglas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amos, Alan
Glyn, Dr Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Ashby, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Atkinson, David
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Baldry, Tony
Ground, Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Hague, William


Beggs, Roy
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bellingham, Henry
Hanley, Jeremy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hill, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hind, Kenneth


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bowis, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Bright, Graham
Irvine, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jack, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Janman, Tim


Buck, Sir Antony
Jessel, Toby


Burns, Simon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Butler, Chris
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Butterfill, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Kilfedder, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carttiss, Michael
Latham, Michael


Cash, William
Lawrence, Ivan


Chapman, Sydney
Lightbown, David


Chope, Christopher
Lilley, Peter


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
McCrindle, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Cope, Rt Hon John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cormack, Patrick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Couchman, James
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cran, James
Miller, Sir Hal


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mills, Iain


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Day, Stephen
Morrison, Sir Charles


Dorrell, Stephen
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moss, Malcolm


Dover, Den
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Durant, Tony
Nelson, Anthony


Emery, Sir Peter 
Neubert, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fookes, Dame Janet
Page, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Paice, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Patnick, Irvine


Forth, Eric
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Franks, Cecil
Porter, David (Waveney)


Freeman, Roger
Portillo, Michael





Raffan, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Redwood, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thurnham, Peter


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Tredinnick, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Summerson, Hugo





NOES


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles


Anderson, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Leighton, Ron


Armstrong, Hilary
Lewis, Terry


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Loyden, Eddie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCartney, Ian


Battle, John
McGrady, Eddie


Beckett, Margaret
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bell, Stuart
McNamara, Kevin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McWilliam, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Madden, Max


Boateng, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Buckley, George J.
Meale, Alan


Callaghan, Jim
Michael, Alun


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Morley, Elliot


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Clelland, David
Nellist, Dave


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Patchett, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Cousins, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cummings, John
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Richardson, Jo


Dixon, Don
Rogers, Allan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Salmond, Alex


Eadie, Alexander
Short, Clare


Fatchett, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fearn, Ronald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Flannery, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Flynn, Paul
Vaz, Keith


Foster, Derek
Wall, Pat


Galloway, George
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Gordon, Mildred
Wareing, Robert N.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Winnick, David


Hinchliffe, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Worthington, Tony


Home Robertson, John



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Frank Cook and


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos.39 to 44 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 25, line 30, after "and" insert
in a case where it was reasonably practicable for him to comply with it after that time, to show

Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 47 and 61.

Mr. Tom King: I shall address my remarks to the first amendment, as it is an example of the others. It is designed to cover the possibility that an employer who was required to supply information to the commission under clause 31 fails to do so within the specified time, and for genuine reasons is unable to meet the requirements thereafter.
The clause as it left this House provided a "reasonable excuse" defence for an employer who could not meet the requirement for information within the specified time. What it did not do, however, was provide a defence for an employer who could not provide the information even after the specified time—by reason, for example, of his personnel records being accidentally destroyed. This amendment allows the commission to recognise those circumstances, and to make appropriate allowances. It does not, however—I stress this—provide an employer with an excuse for not providing information on time: it therefore does not weaken the enforcement provisions made by the Bill. Similar amendments are made to clause 35 and 44.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The House will recall that in replying to the previous debate, the Secretary of State said that he thought that the Opposition were seeking perfection and that if perfection were enshrined in the legislation, it would be extremely difficult to make the legislation work in practice. Perhaps Hansard will make it clear whether that was a distortion or a paraphrase. However, the right hon. Gentleman certainly said that Opposition Members are trying to make the Bill more complicated than it needs to be to do the job that the Government and the Opposition wish it to do.
Throughout the lengthy proceedings on the Bill, although we accept the Government's good intent in fair employment and other key issues, Opposition Members have said that the Government have not gone far enough to ensure that the legislation will be strong enough to provide for fair employment within the Province. Time and again the Secretary of State has exhibited a tendency to rely on the word "reasonable"—what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. In moving amendment No. 45 he used the reasonableness argument again. To underline his reasonableness, he said that the amendment will not aid employers who wish to thwart the implementation of the fair employment legislation.
The Opposition disagree with the Secretary of State on that. That is why we shall vote against amendment No. 45. The amendment further weakens the legislation and will provide some employers—we do not suggest that there will be many—who do not want to be reasonable, who are not the reasonable men to whom the Secretary of State refers, and who wish to thwart the spirit of the legislation with another line of defence if they fail to comply with the wishes or orders of the tribunal.
As the Secretary of State correctly said, as the Bill stands, an employer who fails to provide information upon request from the commission is liable to conviction, but he

has two defences open to him. First, he can show that he has a reasonable excuse—namely, unreasonable cost or inconvenience. Secondly, he can show that it was not practicable for him to comply or try to comply with the requirements before proceedings began. Amendment No. 45 adds the further defence that an employer feels that it is not reasonably practicable to supply information. Amendment No. 45 will place a further restraint on the commission's ability to obtain necessary evidence to identify persistent discriminators.
The Government argue that the amendments are necessary to protect employers from reasonable circumstances—namely, the destruction of records by fire, an act of terrorism, or an act of God. However, the Secretary of State is sufficiently long in the tooth to know that, if that defence is available to employers, every employer who fails to comply with a request will run off to his solicitor or barrister to erect a defence that he can put forward as reasonable. The Secretary of State does not want to give such an opening to recalcitrant or persistent discriminators in the Province. He knows that some people are prepared to spend large amounts of money to be defended in the courts. Solicitors and barristers in the Province will have a field day trying to erect defences which comply with the reasonableness aspect of the amendment.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has followed through the consequences of the amendment. There are now three defences. The third defence, provided by the Lords amendment, is on the question of reasonableness. It is our view that more employers will be able to get round the requirements of the fair employment legislation. I know that the Secretary of State is busy contemplating pastures new, but I wonder whether it has crossed his mind in the past few days that the consequence of the amendment will be further to water down the contract compliance provisions in the Bill.
9.15 pm
The Secretary of State will know that the Bill contains a complex procedure for an employer ultimately to be deemed an unqualified person under the terms of the Act. Only after that exceedingly complex procedure has been undertaken can the contract and grant provisions come into operation. This group of amendments makes it even harder to visualise the contract compliance provisions ever being used. If the threat is no longer real, the provisions will be further undermined.
Even at this late stage we urge the Government to think again so that the Secretary of State's last act is not to make fair employment legislation inoperable in practice.

Mr. Tom King: We make no apology for seeking to establish a reasonable basis for the Bill. We come back to the question of judgment. The matter depends partly on one's judgment and partly on whether one understands the law.
There is an error in what the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said. It is not sufficient for an employer simply to have a reasonable excuse. He must also comply as soon as reasonably practicable, or prove that the proceedings were brought too soon. There is greater protection than the hon. Gentleman appreciates. Our reasonable basis is even more reasonable than he may realise.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 77.

Division No. 326]
[9.17 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hague, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Alton, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Amess, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Amos, Alan
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arbuthnot, James
Harris, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Ashby, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Atkinson, David
Hill, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hind, Kenneth


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Batiste, Spencer
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bellingham, Henry
Hunter, Andrew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Irvine, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jack, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Janman, Tim


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby


Boswell, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bowis, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kennedy, Charles


Brazier, Julian
Kilfedder, James


Bright, Graham
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Buck, Sir Antony
Knox, David


Burns, Simon
Latham, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Lawrence, Ivan


Butler, Chris
Lightbown, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McCrindle, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Carttiss, Michael
Maclean, David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chope, Christopher
Miller, Sir Hal


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mills, lain


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cope, Rt Hon John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Couchman, James
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Nelson, Anthony


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Neubert, Michael


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Dover, Den
Page, Richard


Durant, Tony
Paice, James


Dykes, Hugh
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fallon, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fishburn, John Dudley
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Portillo, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Raffan, Keith


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Forth, Eric
Redwood, John


Franks, Cecil
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Freeman, Roger
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


French, Douglas
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Gale, Roger
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rowe, Andrew


Glyn, Dr Alan
Ryder, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gregory, Conal
Shersby, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Ground, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)





Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wallace, James


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wheeler, John


Summerson, Hugo
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, Rt Hon David





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Armstrong, Hilary
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Battle, John
McCartney, Ian


Beckett, Margaret
McGrady, Eddie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McNamara, Kevin


Boateng, Paul
McWilliam, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Madden, Max


Buckley, George J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Caborn, Richard
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Callaghan, Jim
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clelland, David
Morley, Elliot


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cohen, Harry
Nellist, Dave


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Pendry, Tom


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Cummings, John
Richardson, Jo


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Rogers, Allan


Dixon, Don
Salmond, Alex


Duffy, A. E. P.
Short, Clare


Eadie, Alexander
Skinner, Dennis


Fatchett, Derek
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Steinberg, Gerry


Flannery, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Flynn, Paul
Vaz, Keith


Foster, Derek
Wall, Pat


Galloway, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wareing, Robert N.


Gordon, Mildred
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Worthington, Tony


Hinchliffe, David
Wray, Jimmy


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ray Powell.


Ingram, Adam



Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 69 agreed to.

Clause 52

PROVISION OF TRAINING

Lords amendment: No. 70, in page 44, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 45 and insert—
37A.—(1) This section applies where, in pursuance of affirmative action, persons are afforded access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for employment, for employment in a particular capacity or for a particular employment or occupation, but—
(a) the facilities are provided only at a particular place in Northern Ireland or the training is confined to


persons of a particular class, not being a class framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion, and
(b) by providing the facilities only there or by so confining the training, access to the facilities by persons of a particular religious belief or political opinion is excluded or restricted.
(2) For the purpose of determining whether any act done in, or in connection with, affording those facilities is by virtue of section 16(2) unlawful under any provision of Parts III and IV, the fact that, by providing the facilities only there or by so confining the training, their access to the facilities is thereby excluded or restricted is to be disregarded.'

Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we shall consider amendment (a), in page 44, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 45 and insert—
'Nothing in Parts III and IV shall render unlawful any act done by—

(a) an employer,
(b) an employment agency
(c) a vocational organisation, or
(d) a person providing services mentioned in section 22(1)

in or in connection with affording only persons of a particular community, facilities for training which would help to fit them for employment, for employment in a particular capacity, or for a particular employment or occupation.
(2) For the purposes of this section "community" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.'.

Mr. King: I know that we have had considerable discussion about this matter. I have already commented on the balance that can be struck, but it is not so much a question of balance as a point of policy. It is no secret that, as the Bill has proceeded, under the expert guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), religious-exclusive training has been the issue. While we want to protect people from direct or indirect discrimination and measures to help particular groups, we are not prepared to agree to exclusion from training on religious grounds.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) appreciates that some of the amendments that have been proposed would protect Harland and Wolff from this legislation if it wanted to run a Protestant-only training scheme. I am not sure whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention.
We believe that it is right to encourage people and to tackle disadvantage in the most effective way. It would not be helpful, in the present climate in Northern Ireland, for people with particular religious beliefs to be forbidden from taking part in training courses. This subject has been debated extensively by hon. Members and in the other place.
The divide comes because this is not a matter of balance or interpretation, but a policy issue. We have not stood resolutely on the ground we previously held—we have tried to take account of serious points that were made during debates in Committee, and we gave a clear understanding that we would tackle them in another place. We are debating the form that those amendments took. The Opposition are saying in amendment (a) that the Lords amendment does not go as far as they would like.
As a matter of policy, we are not prepared to take that final step. We think that it would be unwise, and bring this

legislation into disrepute, and be extremely dangerous to community relations. That is why we want to improve the Bill, as we have done, without going a bridge too far, which is what the Opposition seek to do. The difference between us centres on the Opposition's intention to benefit a particular religious group, which would discriminate against certain religious groups.
Lords amendment No. 70 provides for targeting of a particular location, such as west Belfast, and of the criteria used. One can do that without going a bridge too far. One can use the legislation to target training, effectively and legally, on specific areas and under-represented groups of people. That is what the legislation is intended to do, and it is perfectly defensible. Accordingly, religious under-representation can be taken into account when targeting training without there being any risk of direct discrimination.
The Lords amendment has been carefully and expressly framed so that an employer who intends to benefit an under-represented group is protected from allegations of either direct or indirect discrimination, provided that members of the majority group are not expressly excluded. There have been lengthy debates about this issue, and I hope that the House will think that we have made a wise judgment.

Mr. McNamara: It was remiss of me not to congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on their new posts. I beg forgiveness for not doing so, if only because the new Secretary of State represents the constituency of my standard charge.
The Secretary of State was right to say that this matter is the kernel of the Bill. It was the subject of much debate in Committee, in another place and at various meetings. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for his readiness to meet, to discuss and to disagree. Throughout all our debates, there has always been a major difference between us. The right hon. Gentleman referred to our amendment as a bridge too far. Although he has built many important bridges in the Bill. we believe that having got halfway across the river—I am about to mix my metaphors—he now finds himself without sufficient planks to get to the other side. The reason for that is that he has not dealt properly with the question of affirmative action.
If this part of the Bill is not right, it will not be effective in reducing inequality in Northern Ireland. The Bill will create an expensive apparatus that will clearly identify the problems but will not allow them to be tackled. We do not doubt the Government's intentions—that has never been an issue—but we doubt the quality of the advice that they have received and of the policy decisions that they have made.
Two key issues are at stake. First, there is a need to protect affirmative action programmes from challenges under the provisions dealing with discrimination. Secondly, there is a need to eliminate the conflict between the Bill and the sex discrimination legislation. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that employers can organise training schemes for the purposes of affirmative action—that is, schemes calculated to help members of an under-represented community obtain employment in a place of work.
The employer must be protected from those who would claim that affirmative action constitutes a violation of the prohibition on discrimination. That is usually done by


means of a specific exemption which excludes affirmative action from the prohibition on discrimination. That is the case with the legislation dealing with racial and sex discrimination, and it was the basis of our original amendment before we introduced new amendments in an attempt to accommodate some of the Government's fears.
More interestingly, that point is also recognised by the Government, who have introduced amendments to protect employers who advertise posts in such a way as to appeal exclusively to the under-represented community. The Secretary of State will remember the argument about the illegality of the Fair Employment Northern Ireland Act advert, which said that it would welcome applications from Protestants. During the passage of the Bill we had to point out that that was illegal. The Minister said that it was not, but then introduced an amendment to make it legal. I say that not in a disparaging way to the Minister, but in order to highlight the quality of advice to the Government. The Government were prepared to recognise our case in advertising and in everything else except training. If the argument is that it would be going too far to include training, why is the same principle not applied to advertising? The Bill also contains exemptions protecting an employer engaged in affirmative action training schemes from allegations of indirect discrimination. An employer is all right on indirect discrimination but not on direct discrimination.
Obviously, there is a major difference between the Government and Opposition and we regard it as fundamental to the Bill and the cause of much of our concern. The Government have not accepted that there is a need to provide an exemption against direct discrimination on religious grounds. They have two objections to such an amendment. First, they believe that they have done enough to protect employers. As the Secretary of State said, the Government believe that, if an employer provides a training scheme that would be indirectly discriminatory in the absence of an exemption provided for in clause 51, the scheme cannot at the same time be directly discriminatory. Unfortunately, that is not correct. The fallacy of that argument is revealed in the Bill because clause 48 clearly envisages situations in which a practice may be both directly and indirectly discriminatory. In other words, there is an overlap between the two forms of discrimination. That is why an exemption of some form must be included for discrimination as well as indirect discrimination.
Secondly, the Government also believe that an affirmative action scheme which does not totally exclude members of one or other community cannot be considered directly discriminatory. However, there is no requirement totally to exclude one or other community in order to demonstrate direct discrimination. The definition of direct discrimination contained in clause 48 refers to less favourable treatment and not to exclusion. That is the distinction.
Earlier in the debate the Secretary of State showed his confusion about the difference between religion-exclusive and religion-specific training schemes. In the former case, a scheme may be restricted to members of one group, hence the term exclusive. In the latter, the scheme is designed to enable members of an under-represented group to compete more successfully for employment, but it does not exclude all members of the over-represented group. The distinction and the argument has always been between religion-exclusive and religion-specific schemes.
The Government have set their face openly against permitting training schemes that are religiously exclusive. We heard that again today. The preference of the Opposition was simply to base the relevant sections of the legislation on the race and sex discrimination legislation and permit religion-exclusive training. This had the support of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, but it is a nettle which throughout the debate the Government have refused to grasp. Nevertheless, the Opposition supported by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), again in a bid to secure agreement, attempted to accommodate the Government by tabling a variety of amendments at various stages of the passage of the Bill which allowed for religion-specific training, but not religion-exclusive training.
Unfortunately, it has become painfully obvious that the Government have not provided legal protection for religion-specific training. I am convinced that the Government hope that in practice religion-specific training will take place. They believe that this will happen through a variety of proxy criteria rather than through the use of religion itself. The problem is that the law is not what the Government intend it to be but what appears in the statute book. The nod and wink approach to an employer is not a proper way to legislate.
An examination of the Government amendment clearly shows that it has not satisfied the conditions that we laid down for our support of the Bill on Third Reading. We assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the Government would introduce an amendment that made religion-specific affirmative action lawful. We understood, although we did not accept it, that they would look at religion exclusive, but we wanted religion specific. Instead, we have an amendment that prevents religion-specific training, because it specifically prevents the employer from taking religion into account. The amendment would render unlawful the affirmative action programmes that the Bill is designed to promote.
9.45 pm
This strange consequence of the Government amendment is something that they find hard to take on board and one questions the nature of the advice that they are receiving. The surrealistic consequences can be imagined easily. Imagine an employer who launches an affirmative action programme and finds himself before the fair employment tribunal, asked to justify his position. The cross-examination would go something like this: "Why did you organise this affirmation action scheme?" Answer: "Because I wanted to increase the numbers of an unrepresented group." "Who are they?" "They are Catholics"—or, as the case might be, Protestants. "That is to use religion as a criterion for selection?" "Yes." "You are out of order under the Government's amendment."
Affirmative action programmes designed to rectify religious imbalances in the work force must inevitably contain an element of direct discrimination on religious grounds, but this is a factor that employers are not allowed to take into account when pursuing affirmative action. The Government amendment, to say the least, is, in the phrase beloved by the Department of Economic Development, technically deficient.
Faced with the Government's inability to provide sufficient protection for affirmative action, we believed that we could make our point most clearly by returning to our original position, with an amendment that extends the


same protection to affirmative action under this legislation as already exists under the sex and race discrimination laws. Our amendment is clear and unambiguous on this point. The Government have failed to grasp that people abroad will not understand why the law on religious discrimination is not as strong, clear and precise in Northern Ireland as it is on the island of Great Britain.
Simplicity is a virtue in this respect. The more complex the legislation, the less affirmative action will take place. There is a need to clear up the Bill in order that employers have a clear understanding of what is permissible and what is not. This House cannot allow an excessive element of ambiguity to creep in. That would discourage employers from taking action to rectify religious imbalances in the work force.
The Lords amendment also contains another problem, one which the Opposition amendment has the further merit of resolving. This is the conflict between the Government amendment and the Sex Discrimination Order (Northern Ireland) 1988 and the EC's equal treatment directive of 1976. Although the Lords amendment avoids placing indirectly discriminatory criteria on the statute book, unlike the Bill as it stands without the Lords amendment, it encourages employers to use such roundabout methods, because they are prevented from engaging in religion specific training. The criteria in the existing clause, such as age, length of service and unemployment, would all be likely to discriminate against women, and therefore be liable to legal challenge.
Faced with that, the Government have taken out a particular provision. However, any of the criteria suggested are likely to have that effect, whether or not they appear on the face of the Bill. The value of our amendment is that the virtue of simplicity would encourage employers to pursue affirmative action programmes without having to run the risk that any criteria that they use could be challenged in the courts and taken as far as the European Community.
Finally, I shall place on record the Opposition's disappointment that the Government were unable to meet this point and hence to provide a Bill that would be workable and would have a serious effect on the problem of inequality of opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland. We made it clear that we believed that the changes in the Bill were necessary if it was to make an effective contribution to the establishment of fair employment in Northern Ireland.
We were prepared to give the Bill the benefit of the doubt in many parts that we feel are defective, such as contract compliance, if proper amendments were made in other parts.
Affirmative action was one of these concerns; others were indirect discrimination and the introduction of an independent element into the section 42 national security certification procedure, and the improved areas-the remedies available to victims of discrimination, monitoring and timetables. There has been some movement on these latter issues. However, the first two have not been satisfactorily resolved, much to my regret. As a result, it would be dishonest of me to say that I believe the Bill will be as effective an instrument as the Secretary of State believes it will be.
The situation is not beyond redemption. Although the Bill may not be the solution that it should have been, there are many ways in which the Government can reaffirm their commitment to fair employment and make some progress. They can still have an impact on fair employment and on affirmative action programmes and, at the same time, realistically attempt to attract inward investment to the Province, which is what it needs. Large parts of the Bill contain enabling measures, so it should be the priority of the Government to draw up the most effective code of practice and regulations possible within the limitations of the Bill—particularly for affirmative action programmes.
Due attention must be paid to the fair employment aspects of all Government policy—such as the location of public sector jobs and the location of industry. It is essential that all efforts be made to maximise the number of jobs. The Labour party wants fair employment and more employment, and it would be wrong of me not to congratulate the Secretary of State and his former Under-Secretary on the number of jobs that they have sought to bring to the Province. They have attempted to do a great deal in that respect.
It would be a mistake to think that the passage of this legislation is the end of the road: it is only the beginning. I am sorry that we have started out so hesitantly, but I still believe that we shall he able to make progress.

Mr. McGrady: I should like to remedy my earlier omission by congratulating the Minister on his new employment. I want to record my and my colleagues' thanks for his forthright and honest approach to the affairs of Northern Ireland. We often disagreed, but at least we did so in a gentlemanly fashion, and we welcome his successor to his new position. I also record my appreciation of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who had charge of the Committee and whom I found most receptive and understanding. I wish him well in his future endeavours.
Lords amendment No. 70 concerns an area in which the Government have shown a persistent reluctance to call a spade a spade. The Bill deals with religious discrimination, yet the Government seem preoccupied with avoiding that term. Clause 52 deals with outreach programmes—affirmative action programmes reaching out to sectors of the community which are under-represented in certain employers' work forces.
One of the most obvious outreach programmes is the provision of training facilities which we are now debating. The original Bill used every form of terminology except religion: areas of high unemployment, length of unemployment and even age. Then we added length of service. Suddenly we find that these were all totally inadequate and are wiped out by the Lords amendment.
The Government have come along and tried another definition of the problem, using the word "class". It is the only categorisation to be found in the Lords amendment:
the training is confined to persons of a particular class, not being a class framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion".
I defy the Minister to define class in a way that would satisfy the circumstances of Northern Ireland and provide the classification required to remedy the problems that the Bill has attempted to deal with. But the worst definition was in the original clause 52. Part II of the Bill defined communities as the Protestant community and the Roman


Catholic community, yet in every other part of the Bill, the Government have been over-sensitive about putting down in black and white what its terminology means.
I would not argue for extra sympathy on religious grounds, but if we are to redress the imbalances, be they against the Protestant community or the Roman Catholic community, in the work force of a particular employer in a particular area, it is essential that the Bill permits training and outreach programmes to be directed at the under-represented community. I see no legal or moral objection to outreach programmes and training programmes welcoming applications for training from a particular section of the community which is underrepresented, without excluding members of the other community, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointed out.
The Government's dreadful reticence and over-sensitivity is displayed by their abandonment of previous attempts under the original clause 52, which are replaced by the terminology of class. The Government should accept the amendment to the Lords amendment proposed by Labour Members and myself, to put clearly on the record the intent, the purpose and, hopefully, the practicality of the Bill.

Mr. William Ross: Anyone who listened carefully to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) must have shuddered when he drew attention to the fact that the Fair Employment Agency, which is supposed to monitor religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, placed an illegal advertisement in a newspaper to correct the imbalance in its work force. It did so believing that its efforts to correct that imbalance were sufficient to make what was illegal legal, and then found out that the illegality remained. That should have made plain to everyone the sheer complexity of the subject and the immense difficulties in trying to frame legislation to deal with it, rather than let the market deal with it, as Conservative Members are fond of proclaiming when it suits them and desert so rapidly when it does not.
The Bill has been improved by the other place, in so far as it is possible to improve such a weird and wonderful structure. We are grateful for that and we join the Government in resisting those who would destroy the improvements that have been made.
When my right hon. and hon. Friends examined the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and other assorted parties on this side of the House, we were surprised as it seemed to us to be a purely sectarian amendment and that that was the only way in which it could be described. The Secretary of State said that the Bill expressly excluded training schemes from which people could be excluded because of religious denomination. However, religious denomination does not really enter into it because one has to be a Protestant if one happens to be born in a Protestant community and educated at a state school, and one has to be a Roman Catholic if one happens to be born in what is perceived to be a Roman Catholic community and educated in a Roman Catholic school.
The Secretary of State then went on to tell us why we could not have training schemes that were expressly for Roman Catholics or for Protestants, but that the Goverment could possibly deal with that through the location of the training schemes. Anyone who knows the situation in Northern Ireland knows what happens in

some training centres. There are some training centres with practically no Protestants and others where the number of Roman Catholics is extremely small.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, the Extradition Bill [Lords], the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], and the Continental Shelf Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Ross: I did not notice that we had approached the witching hour of 10 o'clock, but now that we are past it we can keep on going until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Anyone who knows what goes on in practice in Northern Ireland knows perfectly well what the Secretary of State was getting at. He was saying that some training centres would cater for the Roman Catholic population and others would cater largely for the Protestant population. That is his way of getting around the difficulties that the proponents of the Bill have identified. I largely believe in the market economy, but I believe that the Bill is nonsense. As we trundle towards the end of its passage through this place, the nonsense and humbug become more and more exposed.
I neglected to say a fond farewell to our departing Secretary of State. I say farewell, but without fondness, because he came to Northern Ireland and was handed the poisoned chalice of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was created by his predecessor. From what the departing Secretary of State said on television the other evening, I thought that he was preparing the policy to be followed by his successor. That is a strange attitude for the Government to adopt, but no doubt the House and the country will get used to departing Secretaries of State always stating the policy to be followed by their successors. Let us hope that the right hon. Gentleman's successor enjoys rather more success. I am sorry that his successor will be trying to implement a policy that Members on this Bench will never accept.

Mr. Tom King: This is well-trodden ground. I appreciate the tribute that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. MacNamara) paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggars), but I do not appreciate the less than generous tributes that he is inclined to pay to officials. That is wrong.
I take responsibility for the policies put forward, but the hon. Gentleman chooses to seek to divide. He thinks that, if he pays tributes to me for what he thinks I am genuinely trying to do about employment, he can then try to suggest that officials are somehow trying to undermine me. That is grossly unfair to officials who have worked extremely hard on this Bill, which deals with extremely difficult matters. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that those matters are not the most popular to pursue in certain quarters of Northern Ireland. Those officials worked on them extremely conscientiously and they have


my great admiration and gratitude for the work that they have done—that is one of the closing statements I would like to make as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that has some aspirations to become the Government. If the hon. Gentleman shortly hopes to achieve that objective, I do not recommend the policy of vilifying the officials who could conceivably, forbid the day, work for him. I say that in all candour. I do and will take any criticism, often sometimes more than I enjoy, for policies that come from the Departments that I have the honour to represent in this House. I will not sit and listen to criticisms of officials and pretend that they are running a private war of their own or are not to be trusted in any way, especially when their work has been outstanding and most conscientious. If the hon. Gentleman becomes the instrument of lawyers who seek to argue with other lawyers and suggest that there is something unworthy about the opinions of other lawyers, that does not do him justice, either. I do not commend that course to him.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North raised a point of contrast between different advertisements. and asked how there could be an advertisement that appeared to favour one group. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) answered him: it is one thing to advertise and encourage representation from a minority under-represented group, but in no way does that exclude people from another part of the community from applying. The hon. Member for South Down was right. At the point of selection for the job, the merit principle will apply.
I have not taken part in the detailed examination of the Bill. I am glad that I have not had to listen to the explanations by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North about the difference between religion-exclusive and religion-specific. It sounds like a distinction without a difference. The idea that we go around Northern Ireland explaining to a lot of employers the subtle difference between the two is not an attractive course. I am afraid that it falls into the trap for which I have already chastised the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam)—losing that valuable quality of balance that is so important in this matter.
The hon. Member for South Down was worried about the protection for outreach training. I should like to confirm what I have already said. Amendment No. 70 has been carefully and expressly framed so that an employer who intends to benefit an under-represented group is protected from allegations of both direct and indirect discrimination, so long as members of the majority group are not expressly excluded. That is an attempt to strike a balance of protection for outreach training without the prohibition or exclusivity to which I take exception and which I believe, as would anyone who reflects on the situation, would be profoundly unwise.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister has just said that the majority group is not excluded. By that, does he mean the Protestant community, or the majority group in the much smaller area in which the training system exists?

Mr. King: I meant the latter.

Mr. McNamara: By leave of the House, I should like to make a few points.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member have the leave of the House to speak again? [Interruption.]

Mr. McNamara: The Minister made a number of statements about me. Therefore, I think that I am entitled to reply to them with the leave of the House. After all, I have tabled an amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assumed that leave had been given. I did not hear a dissentient voice.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister said that I had sullied my tributes to him. In that case, if he is responsible, I withdraw what I said about him. All I would say is that frequently his Ministers came to the Standing Committee and contradicted what they had said earlier.
I am sorry that the Minister cannot grasp the distinction between religion-exclusive and religion-specific. He said that he had not paid great attention to the detail of the Bill. Perhaps if he had done so, we would have had a better Bill.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 71.

Division No. 327]
[10.8 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alton, David
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fallon, Michael


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Franks, Cecil


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Ground, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hague, William


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cash, William
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby






Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kennedy, Charles
Rowe, Andrew


Kilfedder, James
Ryder, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steel, Rt Hon David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, lain
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Paice, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patnick, Irvine
Wallace, James


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Raffan, Keith
Wheeler, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Widdecombe, Ann





Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Wood, Timothy





NOES


Armstrong, Hilary
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Ashton, Joe
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Battle, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Beckett, Margaret
McCartney, Ian


Bell, Stuart
McGrady, Eddie


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McNamara, Kevin


Blunkett, David
McWilliam, John


Boateng, Paul
Madden, Max


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Buckley, George J.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Caborn, Richard
Meale, Alan


Callaghan, Jim
Michael, Alun


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clelland, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cohen, Harry
Nellist, Dave


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cummings, John
Richardson, Jo


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Rogers, Allan


Dixon, Don
Short, Clare


Duffy, A. E. P.
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alexander
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Fatchett, Derek
Steinberg, Gerry


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Flannery, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Flynn, Paul
Wall, Pat


Foster, Derek
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Galloway, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Gordon, Mildred
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wray, Jimmy


Haynes, Frank



Hinchliffe, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Nigel Griffiths and Mr. Allen McKay.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Ingram, Adam

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 71 after clause 52, insert the following new Clause—

REDUNDANCY

"After section 37A of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 there is inserted—

"Redundancy.

37AA.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a practice relating to the selection of employees who may be dismissed as redundant is followed by an employer in pursuance of affirmative action and in accordance with an agreed procedure, and
(b) the practice does not involve the application of any condition or requirement framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion, but has or may have the effect that the proportion of employees of a particular religious belief or political opinion who are selected is smaller than the proportion of employees not of that religious belief or, as the case may be, not of that political opinion who are selected.

(2) The dismissal of an employee in pursuance of the practice is not by virtue of section 16(2) unlawful under any provision of Parts III and IV."

Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall also discuss the following: consequential amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 24, line 5, leave out 'or promotion' and insert 'promotion or redundancy'.
Lords amendment No. 72.

Mr. King: This amendment deals with the interaction of anti-discrimination legislation on redundancy programmes. If an affirmative action programme operated and redundancies occurred, it could lead to extremely difficult complications and, in certain circumstances, could interfere severely with normal industrial relations agreements.
We are not prepared to allow selection for redundancy to be on the basis of religion. That selection would be discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the basic principles of fairness and equity which we have sought to maintain throughout the legislation. That is the background against which amendment No. 71 is constructed.
I hope that the House will recognise the difficult issues involved. We believe that it is right to construct the amendment after earlier discussions in Committee and in another place on this matter. I hope that our approach strikes the fair balance that we seek, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The Secretary of State introduced the amendment in his customary manner. He addressed it in his usual reasonable way and suggested that the Government have the balance about right on this occasion. I venture to suggest to the Secretary of State that, if he fully understood the consequences of the amendment, he would be a little more reticent in urging the House to accept it.
We believe that the amendment does not address the problem that the Secretary of State would like it to address. It is not without significance that when the Bill was originally published, it contained no reference to redundancies. Only as a consequence of prodding by the Opposition, and in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) did the Government recognise that the problem could exist and agreed, after the probing and private discussions, to

seek to bring forward later an amendment that would address the redundancy problem. Amendment No. 71 is a consequence of that further thought and discussion.
There is now general agreement between the Government and the Opposition that redundancy policy, like promotion policy and recruitment policy to a company, can affect the structure of a company's work force. It does not take a genius to see that if an employer pursues an affirmative action programme to rectify imbalances within his work force and some time later is forced to make redundancies on a first-in, last-out basis, the likelihood is that redundancies will cause further inequalities in the balance of the work force and will negate the equality of opportunity that the employer has been trying to achieve.
As the Secretary of State knows, the Opposition were concerned about that matter from the outset. We were concerned also to ensure that the redundancy policy should form an integral part of the periodic review that is required under clause 30. At the outset, Opposition Members presumed that the omission of redundancy was an oversight. When we pointed that out to the Government, they readily agreed to consider the issues. Amendment No. 71 does not deal with the problem that we identified—the absence of a duty on employers to consider redundancy procedures in the review. For that reason, if for no other, we oppose the amendment.
Amendment No. 71 is seriously flawed in two respects. First, it appears that redundancy schemes are protected only when they are part of affirmative action. However, there is no reason why a redundancy policy should be part of an affirmative action programme. It is nonsense that an employer who discovers that existing practices are discriminatory cannot remedy them without engaging in an overall affirmative action programme. That does not take account of a situation in which an employer might already pursue an affirmative action programme and then discover that a redundancy policy is discriminatory.
Secondly, hon. Members who have read the amendment will note that it refers to an agreed procedure. An agreed procedure is not defined in the Bill. Contrary to Government statements in the other place, there is no existing legal concept of agreed procedures. The amendment refers to a situation for which there is no legal basis. Does it involve an agreement with trade unions? I address that question to the Secretary of State. He will know that trade unions do not want that. If the amendment is accepted, it will be the basis of chaos.
If we get an opportunity, Opposition Members will not only vote against amendment No. 71 but press amendment (a), which reverts to our original demand that employers include redundancy procedures in the periodic review required under clause 30.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 68.

Division No. 328]
[10.28 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David


Alton, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Amos, Alan
Beggs, Roy


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Blackburn, Dr John G.






Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Boswell, Tim
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bowis, John
Hunter, Andrew


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Irvine, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Jack, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Janman, Tim


Bright, Graham
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Kennedy, Charles


Burt, Alistair
Kilfedder, James


Butler, Chris
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Butterfill, John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carrington, Matthew
Lightbown, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Cash, William
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
McCrindle, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Maclean, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maginnis, Ken


Couchman, James
Miller, Sir Hal


Cran, James
Mills, lain


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Day, Stephen
Morrison, Sir Charles


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moss, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Dykes, Hugh
Nelson, Anthony


Fallon, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholls, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forman, Nigel
Page, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Paice, James


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Forth, Eric
Patnick, Irvine


Franks, Cecil
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Freeman, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


French, Douglas
Portillo, Michael


Gale, Roger
Raff an, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Glyn, Dr Alan
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rowe, Andrew


Gregory, Conal
Ryder, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Ground, Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hague, William
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Speller, Tony


Harris, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hind, Kenneth
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





Steel, Rt Hon David
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Stevens, Lewis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wallace, James


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Summerson, Hugo
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wheeler, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Tredinnick, David



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr David Heathcoat-Amery and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Waddington, Rt Hon David





NOES


Armstrong, Hilary
Loyden, Eddie


Ashton, Joe
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCartney, Ian


Battle, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beckett, Margaret
McNamara, Kevin


Bell, Stuart
McWilliam, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Madden, Max


Boateng, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Buckley, George J.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Caborn, Richard
Meale, Alan


Callaghan, Jim
Michael, Alun


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clelland, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cohen, Harry
Mullin, Chris


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Nellist, Dave


Cousins, Jim
Patchett, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Cummings, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Richardson, Jo


Dixon, Don
Rogers, Allan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Salmond, Alex


Eadie, Alexander
Short, Clare


Fatchett, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Steinberg, Gerry


Flannery, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Flynn, Paul
Vaz, Keith


Foster, Derek
Wall, Pat


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Gordon, Mildred
Wareing, Robert N.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hinchliffe, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Home Robertson, John
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Ingram, Adam
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 77 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 78, in page 52, line 6, at end insert—

"The Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I.15))

27A. At the end of Article 49 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 there is added—
(4) Any act which by virtue of this Article or Article 48 could not be unlawful under Parts III to V (or, in the case of an act falling within paragraph (3), under Article 15) is not by virtue of section 16(2)(b) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 (indirect discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion) unlawful under any provision of Parts III and IV of that Act.

27B. At the end of Article 63 of that Order there is added—
(3) Where a complaint is presented to an industrial tribunal under paragraph (1) and it appears to the tribunal that the act to


which the complaint relates is one in respect of which (as being unlawful discrimination within the meaning of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976)—

(a) a complaint could be made to the Fair Employment Tribunal for Northern Ireland under Part III of that Act; or
(b) such a complaint has been made, but the proceedings under that Act have not been disposed of,

the tribunal shall not proceed further under this Order in relation to the complaint unless all proceedings which can be taken under that Act in respect of the act have been disposed of."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Tom King.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 8, leave out from 'not' to 'unlawful' in line 11.
Amendment (b), in line 11, leave out 'that Act' and insert
`the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976'.
Amendment (c), in line 26, at end add—
`(4) Paragraph (3) does not apply unless the President or Vice-President has directed that the complaint under this Order shall be heard and determined by the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.'.

Ms. Mowlam: We fear that the relationship between the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 will be jeopardised by Lords amendment No. 79. Indeed, it could bring the Sex Discrimination Order into disrepute and make it less effective in Northern Ireland. That causes great anxiety among women's groups in Northern Ireland, and the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland, so we want the Government to consider the impact that Lords amendment No. 79 would have.
The Secretary of State has argued tonight that he wants a balanced Bill, with a procedure that will work. On the basis of his own criteria, we want him to reconsider Lords amendment No. 79. New section 27A protects affirmative action programmes under the Sex Discrimination Order from challenge, on the grounds that they are indirectly discriminatory, under the Fair Employment Act. Without such provision, a single-sex training course in which the participants are predominantly from one side of the divide could be found to be discriminatory under the Fair Employment Act. We pushed for, and support, the first part of new section 27A. The see of Northern Ireland also pushed for it. We are still convinced, however, that it does not go far enough. Although it protects against indirect discrimination, it does not protect against direct discrimination, and that worries us.
A problem with direct discrimination arises when a direct action scheme for women is undertaken to remedy a religious imbalance. This is the type of affirmative action which the Fair Employment Agency has recommended, most noticeably with respect to the clearing banks.
If higher grades in a place of employment, or on a training programme, are filled predominantly by male Protestants and the lower grades are filled predominantly by female Catholics, an affirmative action scheme which is designed to improve the proportion of women who secure promotion would also lead to a rise in the number of Catholics. If left unamended, Lords amendment No. 79 would enable that to be challenged as discriminatory.
The Lords amendment does not deal with the problem of direct discrimination, so it is ineffective and unacceptable. Indeed, it would be worse than that, as it would render unlawful the Fair Employment Commission's ability to pursue policies that were formerly pursued by the Fair Employment Agency. The legal uncertainty, especially in this part of the Bill, worries women in Northern Ireland. If employers are liable to challenges in the courts, progressive employers would be discouraged from taking action while those who are opposed to equality of opportunity for women will at best be able to use this as an excuse, possibly to turn back the clock. New section 27A is good as far as it goes, but we would like it to go much further in relation to direct discrimination. That is why we have tabled amendments (a) to (c). We think that they would deal with the problem much better than Lords amendment No. 79.
The Minister has told us on previous occasions that these amendments are unnecessary because, under clause 52, employers will be able to use gender as a reference, provided it conforms to articles 48 and 49 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. That argument has been used against it in the past. That is the only argument that the Government have made either in Committee or in the Lords, and if it is the only argument they advance now, it is incumbent on the Minister to answer two questions. First, if that argument holds, why is it necessary to put down an amendment to schedule 2 to deal with indirect discrimination? If the Government argument is valid, it can apply equally to indirect and direct discrimination.
Secondly, we understand that clause 52 as amended by the Government would not afford schemes such as those that I have mentioned protection by the Fair Employment Commission. The Government have failed to provide an answer to those two matters in relation to new section 27A. The Minister has told us that new section 27B is very important and that he wants to see the process working practically. New section 27B deals with the procedural relationship between sex discrimination and religious discrimination cases. The difficulty with amendment No. 79 as it stands is that a complainant may bring a case under sex discrimination legislation to the industrial tribunal. That same complainant may also bring a case of alleged religious discrimination to the fair employment tribunal which rests with the same evidence. That means that two channels are open.
Clause 6(2) of the Bill allows the president or vice-president of the tribunal discretion—that is the important word—to transfer the sex discrimination case to the fair employment tribunal where it may be heard concurrently with the fair employment case. The Government amendment to the schedule creates a problem in that, if the president or vice-president does not exercise the discretion provided, the sex discrimination case must


be adjourned until all the proceedings under the fair employment legislation are completed. That worries us. Under the Sex Discrimination Order, that could happen immediately.
Under the procedures that the amendment would introduce, sex discrimination cases must be adjourned. As a result, the amendment enshrines in the Bill structural discrimination against women, which could obviously lead to a case under the EC equal treatment directive of 1976. The Minister may say that that is not so, but he is well aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission has informed the Government of its intention to take exactly this issue to the European Commission if the Government amendment is not withdrawn.
I shall outline some defects in the procedure that I have described. First, since the fair employment case would already have been decided, the sex discrimination case would, by default, be prejudiced. Secondly, it is obvious that, in such cases, overlapping facts will have to be established when the first case is held. However, the applicant would be at a disadvantage because she would not be able to secure the assistance of the Equal Opportunities Commission for the fair employment hearing, and that would put her at a disadvantage at the sex discrimination hearing.
Thirdly, if the applicant wins the fair employment case, the decision will still be subject to appeal. As the Minister is well aware, taking a case to appeal in Northern Ireland can take anything up to two years, during which the sex discrimination case would continue to be pending. The applicant would then have the burden and the additional costs of a separate case, which would be based largely on the same set of facts.
Fourthly, witnesses would be required to give evidence twice, with an interval of anything up to two years between the cases. For those reasons, we have tabled amendments (a) to (c), which would overcome the difficulties in relation to the fair employment tribunal.

Mr. Tom King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), who sought valiantly to make quite complicated matters seem simple and clear. She was discussing in particular the complicated matter of the interaction between religious discrimination at work, which the Bill is aimed at preventing, and sex discrimination. Some extremely complex scenarios can be constructed. Fortunately, the hon. Lady helped me through this and kindly gave us seven out of 10 for effort on new section 27A. This reflects what I chastised the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for not recognising—that we have tried to respond to what we thought were genuine concerns, as they have arisen.
The history of the Bill is not one of the Government producing legislation, laying it down, defeating every effort to criticise it and not being willing to consider a review. The hon. Lady fairly recognised that the first part of Lords amendment No. 79 directly addresses the points that have been raised. We think that all of it does so. The hon. Lady is at least prepared to accept that new section 27A is a good start in the right direction. She then pinched my best line by saying that I would probably say that once again this is a question of balance and practicality. Her shrewdness anticipated my reply, because that it what it is. As she knows, it is the hallmark of the Bill.
Against that background, I shall deal with the first interaction, which is the difficult one of how these cases

will be dealt with. The hon. Lady drew attention to the problems which could arise, and immediately assumed that this would once again mean disadvantage for women faced with sex discrimination cases, which would be put back so that there were always delays and problems with cases going to appeal with a religious case as well. She spoke of the difficulties that this would impose.
It may be helpful if I tell the House what the normal practice will be. A religious case will go to the fair employment tribunal, and a joint sex and religious case will also go, under the provisions of clause 6, to the president, who has the discretion to direct that the fair employment tribunal hear both cases together. A sex case in which a religious issue arises cannot reasonably proceed before the industrial tribunal because that tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the religious disputes. The way forward is for the individual concerned to lodge a case of religious discrimination with a fair employment tribunal, which can then hear and adjudicate on both cases. That is how we see it proceeding and we hope that that will be helpful. I accept, as the hon. Lady did in a most engaging way, that if one has these two elements interacting in this way, there can be complications, and the case will not be dealt with as expeditiously as it would if there were just one issue at stake. I hope that she feels that this is a genuine attempt to redress the matter.
The hon. Lady then got into the complicated matter of protection from indirect but not direct discrimination. The Bill makes indirect religious discrimination illegal for the first time. The Government were pleased to accede to the Opposition's request to protect gender-specific training under articles 48 and 49 of the Sex Discrimination Act (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 from allegations of indirect religious discrimination. The territory into which the hon. Lady led us is extremely complex, and some hon. Members may not have found it easy to follow, despite her clarity.
Indirect discrimination is complex, involving the application of a requirement or condition which is applied equally but is such that it has an adverse impact on a person, it cannot be shown by the respondent to be justifiable irrespective of religious belief and it is to the detriment of a person because he or she cannot comply with it. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which an employer operating a gender-specific training course could not deploy the justifiable defence of the second condition that I have mentioned, on the grounds that a training course was justifiable to remedy a gender imbalance in a work force. The Government acceded to the commission's request in recognition of the complexity of indirect discrimination and to ensure that those operating gender-specific training would be protected from these complexities.
We have sought to strike the balance to which the hon. Lady referred and to ensure protection for anti-discrimination measures. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) recognised that the legislation has some merits, and I am anxious to see it brought into effect as soon as possible.
I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment to a Division, and I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Amendment (a) proposed in lieu of the Lords amendment: line 8, leave out from 'not' to 'unlawful' in line 11.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 167.

Division No. 329]
[10.57 pm


AYES


Armstrong, Hilary
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCartney, Ian


Battle, John
McGrady, Eddie


Beckett, Margaret
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McNamara, Kevin


Boateng, Paul
McWilliam, John


Buckley, George J.
Madden, Max


Caborn, Richard
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Meale, Alan


Clelland, David
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cousins, Jim
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cryer, Bob
Mullin, Chris


Cummings, John
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alexander
Richardson, Jo


Fatchett, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Salmond, Alex


Flannery, Martin
Short, Clare


Flynn, Paul
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Steinberg, Gerry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Gordon, Mildred
Vaz, Keith


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wall, Pat


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hinchliffe, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Home Robertson, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ingram, Adam
Wray, Jimmy


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)



Leadbitter, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Loyden, Eddie





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alton, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Beggs, Roy
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Chope, Christopher


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bowis, John
Couchman, James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Cran, James


Brazier, Julian
Currie, Mrs Edwina





Davis, David (Boothferry)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Day, Stephen
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Dorrell, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neubert, Michael


Dover, Den
Nicholls, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fallon, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Page, Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Paice, James


Forman, Nigel
Paisley, Rev Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Irvine


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Forth, Eric
Porter, David (Waveney)


Franks, Cecil
Portillo, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Raffan, Keith


French, Douglas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gale, Roger
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rowe, Andrew


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Ryder, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gregory, Conal
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Ground, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hague, William
Speller, Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Harris, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Steen, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Stern, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stevens, Lewis


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Summerson, Hugo


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Irvine, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jack, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Janman, Tim
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thorne, Neil


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Thurnham, Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Kennedy, Charles
Twinn, Dr Ian


Kilfedder, James
Viggers, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Walden, George


Latham, Michael
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lightbown, David
Wallace, James


Lilley, Peter
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


McCrindle, Robert
Wheeler, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Maginnis, Ken
Wood, Timothy


Meyer, Sir Anthony



Miller, Sir Hal
Tellers for the Noes:


Mills, lain
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendments Nos.79 to 81 to.

Extradition Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a consolidation measure. The first general legislative recognition of extradition came in the Extradition Act 1870. The Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 is currently the main legislation governing extradition to the independent members of the Commonwealth and to the remaining colonies. Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 set out a new system of extradition to foreign states. The Bill consolidates this new legislation about extradition as between the United Kingdom and foreign states with the 1967 legislation about Commonwealth extradition.
In preparing the consolidation, the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission issued a report in which they made a number of recommendations for minor technical amendments in order that a satisfactory consolidation might be achieved.
The Bill has been passed in another place where, in the usual way, it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills. The Committee reported that the recommendations of the Law Commissions were necessary for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law, and that the Bill gives effect to those recommendations. The Committee adopted certain amendments to improve the form of the Bill. It concluded that, apart from giving effect to the Law Commissions' recommendations, the Bill was pure consolidation of the existing law.
As always, our thanks are due to the Law Commissions and to the draftsmen for continuing their important consolidation work and also to the Joint Committee for its careful scrutiny of the Bill on our behalf.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wondered whether this consolidation measure on extradition would take care of people who have committed large-scale fraud in the City of London and have the money and ability to fly the coop, unlike many of the people who are committed for crimes in Britain. I am thinking particularly of Peter Cameron-Webb and Peter Dixon in the famous PCW fraud case, who managed to get away with about £40 million—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Member that when we debate a consolidation measure we consider not the merits of the law but merely whether the law as enacted should be consolidated. We cannot discuss the merits of cases arising out of the law.

Mr. Skinner: But there is a difficulty. Not too long ago—I do not know whether you are present, Mr. Deputy Speaker—during Question Time I asked the Attorney-General about this matter. He gave the impression that there might be opportunities to extradite these two gentlemen, who are living in the lap of luxury, from the United States under the extension of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter cannot conceivably arise under this measure.

Mr. Skinner: This is a rather strange place, is it not? If it had been some old lady who had been caught stealing a tin of sardines in Marks and Spencer, I have no doubt that any consolidation measure would have allowed for that matter to be discussed, especially if she were thrown in gaol. But when it is the establishment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here a long time. He knows that whatever may have happened in other circumstances with respect to old ladies in Marks and Spencer, he cannot discuss these matters on the measure that is before the House. It is a consolidation of the law that has been approved by Parliament. The lion. Member cannot discuss changes arising under that law.

Mr. Skinner: I am not altogether happy about the consolidation, for the good reason that I do not think that the Acts, consolidated or otherwise, have been doing the job correctly in terms of those City crooks—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be that as it may, and the hon. Member may well be entitled to his opinions about the wisdom or otherwise of what has happened in the past, but Parliament has enacted that law and we cannot reopen those matters now. The hon. Member must address himself to the merits of consolidation. The only issue before the House is whether these measures should be consolidated.

Mr. Skinner: As a matter of fact, I am a little concerned about the fact that this consolidation is taking place. I may have to vote against this consolidation measure. I assume that I am still able to vote against consolidation measures.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: For the time being.

Mr. Skinner: "For the time being," says the Fascist opposite, head of the goose-stepping tendency.
I wonder whether the Solicitor-General can reply to my point about these crooks in the City of London who have got away with blue murder—£40 million, as a matter of fact. Will the Solicitor-General give us updated information about whether that five-year extradition period has been extended? Will it be possible under this consolidation measure—which we cannot discuss in principle, but which we can mention in passing—for these people to be apprehended? Can they be brought over here at a later date?
We have had a Cabinet reshuffle, so I suppose that we could say that it has been consolidated, or otherwise. Shall we have another statement from the Attorney-General under the consolidation measure? Is that possible or am I asking too much in requesting the Solicitor-General to explain why these people have got away with it? As this Government are supposed to believe in law and order with equality for everyone—which we know is not true, but let us assume that it is—will the Solicitor-General tell the people that those crooks in the City of London, such as those at Blue Arrow, Phillips and Drew, County NatWest and NatWest itself, could come under this consolidation measure?
I am throwing those cases in as an example in discussing the merits of consolidation generally, of course. I am not into discussing the merits of a particular measure, but whether, when we pass consolidation measures, it is a good idea to throw in a few anecdotes and examples to give the issue some colour and flavour so that we understand what it is about.
Is the Solicitor-General likely to say that the Serious Fraud Office will deal with the crooks at County NatWest, and ensure that they do not fly the coop under this consolidation measure and that they are treated equally with ordinary citizens? Those are questions that hon. Members should ask on behalf of their constituents late at night in this quaint little place. Will the Solicitor-General respond to them? Of course he will not.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to raise a couple of points about consolidation. The measure involves a number of orders and they seem to be affirmative orders in every case. That is, no doubt, a reflection of a consolidation. Affirmative orders were produced in previous consolidated legislation so, naturally, we expect that precedent to be followed. However, it is the practice of the House for affirmative as well as negative procedure orders to go to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee then reports to the House on the deficiencies, including, as the Solicitor-General knows, the question of the vires of the order. As some important issues are covered by the Bill, it is relevant that if the Committee reports that an order is ultra vires or defective in drafting, or that a Minister is making unusual use of powers, those reports should be taken into account.
When the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills examined the fact of consolidation and the incorporation of these affirmative procedures into the legislation, did it consider making it a requirement—which is not a requirement under Standing Orders of the House—that before the affirmative orders could be debated in the Chamber, the Solicitor-General and the House should have the opportunity to study the report from the Joint Committee?
The examination and scrutiny of delegated legislation in this House is abysmal. Only last week, we dealt with 15 orders—admittedly not by the affirmative procedure, because they were negative instruments which were being prayed against—in three hours. There was a report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for which the evidence was not available so the House could not consider it, although it should have done so. As the members of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills are Members of the House and as they are getting measures together in one central document, they should have given some consideration to such reports and they should have incorporated other matters into the legislation. I shall be pressing for this more widely on every consolidation measure so that members of the Committee know that they should not consider only previous legislation—and I have no quarrel with their considering that.
The Committee should also incorporate the way in which the House has dealt with previous legislation. Would it not be reasonable for the Minister to comment, first, on whether he thinks that the House should have the reports before the orders provided for in this measure are debated and, secondly, whether the Committee considered framing the legislation so that there was no question of a repeat of what has happened in the past?
On several occasions the Committee has undertaken work and taken evidence but because the Government Whips find the democratic process a bit of a nuisance and push to one side not only Labour Members of the Committee but Conservative Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how these matters can conceivably arise from the measure that is before the House.

Mr. Cryer: Let me explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that clause 6 refers to an Order in Council relating to the arrangements set out on the Bill. Clause 32 deals with
Orders in Council relating to colonies
and clause 32(3) says:
Any Order in Council under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Clearly, we are talking about affirmative resolutions. What I am asking the Minister is whether, in deciding on the affirmative procedure, the Consolidation Committee considered ensuring that Ministers who are being given power under the Bill—[Interruption.] Effectively, the House throws such powers away; it does not care how Ministers exercise the powers. That happens in Standing Committee as a matter of course, so why cannot we ask whether members of the Consolidation Committee gave their minds to this process, instead of going through the routine in about half an hour and being glad to get out of the place—the usual path that the Consolidation Committee takes? In this instance, at least, we are legislating for people in difficult and controversial circumstances, and in my view, we do not examine the minutiae of some of the legislation that we pass as closely as we should.
In the light of the powers given in the Bill, my question to the Minister seems relevant. Did the Consolidation Committee say, "All right—we shall ensure that the Minister is subject to further scrutiny by making sure that the reports of the Committee appointed by the House to produce them are considered, instead of being thrown on to the legislative scrap heap so that the House cannot make a judgment on them"? I can see from your interested attitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you think that the Minister could well comment on this matter.

Mr. Gary Waller: I want to make two quick points in response to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). First, the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills, of which I am a member, goes through these matters in considerable detail, and for very much longer than the hon. Gentleman suggested. Secondly, some half a dozen members of the Labour party are members of that Committee and I do not think that a single one of them has attended the Committee during this Parliament.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am a little surprised at what is going on here; I really am. We as Members of Parliament are entitled to know what is going on, but it would seem that there is a secret society about, and I am pleased that I have listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The problem that they have outlined worries me. We are ordinary Members of this


Parliament, and we are entitled to know what is going on, yet it would seem that those who serve on the Committee are the only ones who know what is going on apart from the Minister, so I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some answers tonight. I am pleased that I stayed to listen to my hon. Friends.
What drew me more than anything was the speech made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), because he is trying to protect his Committee. He was afraid and upset as a result of the remarks made by my hon. Friends. Their comments drew the hon. Member for Keighley to his feet. I hope that, because of what my hon. Friends have said, we will get some answers tonight.
I know the Solicitor-General quite well. He seems to be a fair and honest chap. I speak to him privately outside the Chamber and we talk about all manner of things. I have got to know him and I hope that he will stand up tonight and answer some of the questions that have been put to him. He should ignore the contribution from the hon. Member for Keighley. The questions that count were raised by Opposition Members.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will respond to the questions from my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover suggested that the Solicitor-General was fastened to his seat and did not want to get out of it. As a result of what has been said this evening, I hope that we will get the answers. I do not like secret societies. We are entitled to know what is happening in this place.
I represent 66,000 electors back home out of a population of 103,000. When I return to my constituency, I want to be able to tell them that this is not a secret society. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Bradford, South have opened this matter up when it could just have slipped through. I congratulate them on returning to the Chamber to open this matter up because they have given me the opportunity to express my feelings about it. Mr. Solicitor-General, come to the Dispatch box and tell us what is happening.

The Solicitor-General: It is a very special pleasure to be able to fulfil the wishes of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) who wants to know what is going on. I must disappoint him by disagreeing with his criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighly (Mr. Waller) who obviously knows what is going on and who played a detailed part on the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.
I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for Ashfield that he is not living in a secret society. If his onerous duties as an Opposition Whip had given him time to pass through the Members Lobby, he might have swung away to his left—something that I know that he finds very difficult to do—and called at a window where he could have obtained a selection of documents including the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has an almost unrivalled knowledge of the procedure of the House, and that knowledge is greatly respected. It was therefore very unusual that he should not have stopped off at the Vote Office and equipped himself with the very detailed documents about the workings in this House and

another place of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills, in which he would have found informative answers to the questions that he raised.

Mr. Haynes: The Solicitor-General is pursuing a line which might cause me to go off him. I do not think that he has worked in the Government Whips Office. Yes, I work in the Opposition Whips Office. However, the Solicitor-General has not been there and he does not know what kind of work is involved. I do not have the time to run to the Vote Office every five minutes to see what is going on in there. I have other duties to perform on behalf of east midlands Members. I am a very busy chap and I am here all the time.
I frequently pass through the Members Lobby unless I am telling at the Division Lobby door. The Solicitor-General must understand that we are not all like him—we are not lucky enough to have everything put in front of us, in our laps, with a clear explanation of what is going on. I have to seize opportunities like this to find out. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and Bradford, South have opened all this up. Come off it, Mr. Solicitor-General, be fair about this.

The Solicitor-General: The Ashfield Advertiser is due for a special treat with the hon. Gentleman's weekly contribution.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no such thing as the Ashfield Advertiser. I thought that I should correct the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point.

The Solicitor-General: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misnaming the newspaper in which he regularly writes.[Interruption.] The Mansfield CHAD, I am told, will have a particularly interesting article this week, drawn from the minutes of the proceedings of the Consolidation Committee. The hon. Gentleman has been kind to me, so I shall be kind to him and say that he has actually spoken to me occasionally on the Terrace, which was a special treat. I hope that he will do me another favour and send me a copy of his article drawn from the debate, and I shall read it and learn from it and know that our proceedings are understood far beyond the portals of this place, to the benefit of our fellow countrymen.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Considered in Committee.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With the leave of the House, I will put together clauses 1 to 38.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. The Order Paper states that the remaining stages "may" be taken. It does not say that they will be taken. Therefore, I wonder whether any manuscript amendments are permitted, in view of the vague indication on the Order Paper and the unusual circumstances in which other stages may be taken. Naturally, with a lack of certainty, it is not easy for hon. Members to table amendments. Therefore, it seems to me that, as the point that I have raised could easily be altered in a tiny, modest amendment, perhaps a manuscript amendment could be moved so that we could progress more equitably and improve the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no responsibility for what appears on the Order Paper. The House has agreed that we should be in Committee. I have received no notice of any amendments. With the leave of the House I will put together clauses 1 to 38.

Clauses 1 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Cryer: I much regret that the House was not afforded the opportunity to consider a manuscript amendment, as I like to see—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have no responsibility for what happened in Committee.

Mr. Cryer: I understand your difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, at some time, you could have a word with the person who chaired the Committee for which you are not responsible and draw to his attention the omission to which I have drawn your attention. That would be a help. On Second Reading, the Minister did not answer my point. He referred me to some documents that explained the details of the working of the Consolidation Committee. That Committee produced a report, and hon. Members are very grateful for it.
My guess is that the Consolidation Committee did not consider incorporating a requirement that the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments should be available to the House before the provisions in the Bill are debated. If it did so, I am sorry that it did not press ahead with it and incorporate it in the consolidated measure with which we are dealing. If it had done so, it would have been an unprecedented move which I would have welcomed wholeheartedly.
As a member of the Committee is in his place—the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)—I wish to draw his attention to the desirability of such a procedure. It would ensure that the work of Conservative and Labour Members who serve on the Committee—unfortunately, the SLD member of the Committee has not turned up since the 1987 general election and has resigned his membership of the Committee as a consequence of my drawing attention to the matter, and I have no doubt that the minority parties are searching for a replacement—is not ignored. They work hard and diligently.

Mr. Skinner: The SLD member of the Committee is Second Hand Rose.

Mr. Cryer: Perhaps my hon. Friend's interjection is not germane to the issue.
It is important that reports of the Committee's work should be available to the House. There should be a Standing Order that the reports should be available and

that the Committee should report to the House before a debate takes place in the Chamber. At present, the procedure amounts to a matter of luck. It seems reasonable that I should register my concern. I hope that some sort of pressure will result in time in the incorporation of a requirement in primary legislation that covers secondary legislation.
I remind the House that under the Government, secondary legislation and statutory instruments have not diminished. In 1979, the new Conservative Government were committed to taking legislation off our backs. Since then they have increased the number of statutory instruments that come before us. There are more and more delegated powers, and these are often highly complicated in their nature. Sometimes their text is four or five times the length of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are a long way from the Third Reading of this consolidation measure.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for your indulgence, as ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am merely saying that there should be some sort of check. The Minister has not answered the points that I have raised. I wish only to register the importance of the procedure that I am advocating.

Mr. John Fraser: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). The House will recall that I spoke briefly to welcome the Bill.
The problem with British law is that it is far too complicated and found in far too many places. Schedule 2 tells us that the law on extradition, which is extremely important, is found in 27 different statutes. It was the idea of the leading Bevanite, Geoffrey Bing, that we should have a simple and speedy method of, to take the Bill as an example, getting rid of 27 statutes and replacing them with one statute. It was the view of Geoffrey Bing and his colleagues that the best way of achieving that would be to consolidate the law in a way which meant that there would be no substantial changes to it.
I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South says when he expresses his concern about statutory instruments, but I wish to make my position clear. If we introduce amendments when we deal with consolidation, the major objective of bringing complex law into one statute so that it can be understood by practitioners and laymen alike will be lost. For that reason I was somewhat brief at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Lords

Not amended (in the Standing Commmittee), considered.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

DEEDS AND THEIR EXECUTION

Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 19, after `(3)' insert—
'Except as provided for in subsection 3(A) below'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in line 27, add at end—
'3(A) The provisions in subsection (3)(a) above, insofar as they require the presence of and attestation by witnesses, should not apply to the execution of deeds of covenant made in favour of a charity'.

Mr. Wallace: The amendment would exempt from the provisions of the Bill, which substantially enacts the recommendations set out in report No. 163 of the Law Commission on deeds and escrows—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly—a provision which would exempt deeds of covenant executed in favour of a charity.
The reason for the amendment is relatively simple. As the Bill stands, it will be necessary for deeds of covenant to be attested by two witnesses or in the presence of a witness who attests the signature of the person who is executing the deed. Several charities have expressed the fear that, as the amounts given by many people are relatively small, if those people had to go through the additional procedural requirement of having the deed attested, they might be discouraged from executing such deeds, thus depriving many charities of sums on which they depend to keep their good works going.
Barnardo's in particular has made representations to my hon. Friends and myself that that could have a considerable impact on their receipts. It has been estimated that the average donation by covenant is £32·95, which the House will recognise is a modest sum, but when that amount is grossed up over many people, it amounts to the lifeblood of many charities.
There are several reasons why people might hesitate to execute such deeds if they had to require the presence of a witness. The witness may be a member of the family or a close friend, and the individual may feel embarrassment. Some people have a natural modesty about giving money to charity because it is the sort of thing that they like to do anonymously and they would not necessarily want their friends or relatives to know. People might be reluctant to make covenants that had to be witnessed, as they might feel that the person who was being asked to witness the deed would feel left out in any testamentary succession.
Whatever the motives, many charities feel fear and apprehension. We have consulted many bodies, including the Charities VAT and Tax Reform Group, which shares the concern that charities could lose a substantial amount of money. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention; I concede that, in a number of successive

Budgets, they have made specific proposals to encourage charitable giving and have done some things to help the fiscal position of charities.
Having looked at the Law Commission's report, I must say that it is not evident that this position has been considered, and I do not believe that to date—perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to inform the House on this point—that potential problem has been given adequate consideration.
As charities could be seriously affected by this measure, I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the amendment which, albeit in small amounts, could mean cumulatively hundreds of thousands of pounds for charities. If the Government cannot accept the amendment, I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to say something positive so that the many charities that genuinely fear the consequences of the measure will have some reassurance.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for moving this short amendment and for giving us the chance of a short debate to clarify the Government's position on this matter. There has been an opportunity to consider correspondence with the charities that he mentioned. I am grateful for what he said about the actions of this Government over several years in taking steps greatly to encourage charitable giving. The Bill's objective is to put nothing in the way of that.
If one concentrates for one moment on what the hon. Gentleman's amendment would seek to do and then on what is current practice and on what is sensible, one quickly finds the answer to the point that he has raised. Therefore, I hope that what I say will quickly set minds at rest.
The effect of the amendment is that deeds of covenant in favour of a charity would not need to be witnessed and attested, but they would still have to be signed and delivered, and it would still have to be clear on the face of the instrument that it was intended to be a deed. Even for this amendment, it would be recognised that there must be formalities, which are important because the giver is creating a document which has legal effect and also, through the Revenue, gives rise to tax relief.
What the Bill proposes, and what the Law Commission after much careful thought decided was sensible, was that, whereas in the past, a Bill had to be signed, sealed and delivered, but did not have to be witnessed—the question of sealing frequently gave rise to difficulties and to failure to receive tax relief—in future a deed should make it clear on its face that it was a deed and that it should be witnessed and delivered.
The practicality of witnessing, which the amendment seeks to remove, is well illustrated by the fact that every covenant that hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed already contains lines for witnesses' signatures. It has become almost standard practice for such deeds to be witnessed, although that is not a legal requirement. Therefore, the Law Commission recommended that we should bring the formalities of the Bill into line with contemporary standards—yes, keeping some formality and, yes, providing safeguards, but doing it in a way that people will very well understand.

Mr. Wallace: I accept that my principal training is in the law of Scotland and I am not over-acquainted with


English provision. Therefore, will the Solicitor-General clarify the position for me, and perhaps for other hon. Members? If a deed—we are talking about deeds which very often involve relatively small amounts—is to be effective, does it need to be sealed, or can it be effective without attestation and sealing?

The Solicitor-General: A deed, to be effective, so that it could be enforced at law, requires to be signed, sealed and delivered. Although the sealing has now become very much a formality, and tends to have a little circle, or a little circle with the letters "LS" in the middle of it in place of the type of seal which applied in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, when people were less familiar with writing and wanted to have some other way of marking their formal approval to a document, it is, nevertheless, a requirement today. However, it has become an outdated formality and it will cease to be a requirement, so that difficulty will be removed.
It is a matter of balance and judgment, but I urge upon the House the argument that the Law Commission has thought about the matter carefully and that we have had the opportunity for further thought in correspondence with a number of charities that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has mentioned. I recommend to the House that the Bill has got it right and that the amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. Wallace: I have listened carefully to what the Solicitor-General has said, and I accept that some thought has been given to the matter. The amendment was tabled principally as a response to the concern of a number of charities. I hope that, if experience suggests that the system proposed in the Bill, which will no doubt shortly be enacted, will result in any diminution of the amounts being given to charities, the matter will be the subject of further consideration.
Having said that I am a Scotsman, I can tell the House that, in Scotland, if one writes a holograph and signs one's own name, that is quite effective. Perhaps that is something for our English colleagues to learn.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: There is a small matter in the Bill on which I am not altogether clear. Clause 2, begins:
A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each".
A little later, the clause says:
This section does not apply in relation to",
inter alia,
a contract made in the course of a public auction".
I am not a lawyer, but I am a chartered surveyor, and I have been to many public property auctions. If you went to such a public auction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have a catalogue in which you would find general and special conditions of sale. We all know that, in an auction, at the fall of the hammer, the contract is made. There is

then a memorandum that has to be signed. I believe that it forms part of the contract, in which are incorporated the general and special conditions of sale.
I think that I am right in saying that a contract can be void for uncertainty. It occasionally happens in property auctions that someone sticks his hand up, the property is knocked down to him, and he disappears. Here, we have a provision which seems to remove any confirmation of a sale. There seems to be a discrepancy. I do not understand it, and I should be most grateful for some clarification.

Mr. John Fraser: The Bill has gone through all its stages rapidly, but it is important—more important than was first made out.
The arrangements about sealing change the law from that which was mediaeval to that which is modern. I am not absolutely convinced that witnesses were necessary to sealing, but I understand that the reason is that the incidence of fraud is fairly high, and having a witness is likely to reduce it. We are glad that the other formalities have gone and that we are to follow what is in reality the practice.
The law has always been arcane in respect of the rule that contracts have to be evidenced in writing rather than to be in writing. People have found that they have made contracts by accident, and they have not always been helped by judges who have made decisions about these matters without knowledge of how the world works outside the court.
We also have the repeal of the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. I think that that redeems a Conservative party pledge. What I hope will flow from the passage of the Bill is a change in the nature of conveyancing. The vendor's solicitors will in future spend much longer preparing the contract package and examining their own title, and the purchaser will not have to find a catch in the contract.
I hope that the practice of vendors having to look at the title, which they do not have to do at the moment, will expand, so that when a purchaser receives a contract, it is as complete as it can possibly be. The result is that conveyancing will be simpler and cheaper. This is an important Bill, and I hope that it will not pass unnoticed.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has just said. This is an important Bill. It is short, but it modernises the law in extremely sensible and practical ways.
With regard to detailed law, I must refer my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) to his learned societies. It is not for me to give him advice. It must be very clear, as I am sure he will appreciate when he reads the Bill at his leisure, that, at an auction, the sale is completed at the fall of the hammer; the opportunity for writing and signature would not be appropriate, so there is that exclusion.
This is a very sensible little Bill. It has passed quickly, but not without careful thought, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee: reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): To save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the four motions to approve the statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of Tyne Authority and British Railways Board) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Various Local Authorities) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That Mr. Secretary Wakeham be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Sir Geoffrey Howe be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Michael Latham: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) who is a newly appointed Whip, has earned his money tonight.
I am glad to have this opportunity to debate the future of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray. The debate is especially relevant now because, if certain ideas floating around the Ministry of Defence were to be accepted by Ministers, the RAVC, Melton Mowbray, would have no future at all. As I have told three successive Defence Ministers—I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces to the debate—the RAVC has long believed that some officials in the Ministry of Defence have for many years wanted to close the operation at Melton Mowbray, and have not hesitated to say who they are. I look to my hon. Friend to ensure that such fears are groundless.
I say to the Minister in the most unmistakable terms that the RAVC is an integral part of Melton Mowbray. It has been there with the horses as a remount centre since 1903 and has been continually used for horses since that time. The Army dog training school, which was already under RAVC command, has been in Melton Mowbray since 1946. The current facilities in Melton Mowbray are the Army veterinary hospital which deals with all horse and dog surgery in the Army. It has facilities for hospitalising 24 horses and seven ill dogs. It has custom-built equine and canine operating theatres, with all the necessary support facilities, as well as an equine and canine radiographic and medical treatment complex.
The average daily in-patient figures last summer were 10 horses and four dogs, and a further 10 horses and six dogs were treated daily as out-patients. That excludes routine inspections, vaccinations or radiography. The Army school of equitation trains equitation instructors, supervisors for mounted units and, of course, the horses. There are extensive stabling provisions, an indoor riding school and facilities for field and obstacle exercises, many of which have been extensively refurbished in the last five years. Training courses continue virtually all year.
The Army school of farriery was purpose-built in 1962, and is recognised as one of the best teaching facilities in Europe. It trains Army farriers and also shoes the Army's horses. The remounts depot at Melton Mowbray deals each year with 60 to 70 young, unbroken or partially broken horses which are purchased by the Army. They are put to grass in Melton Mowbray and vaccinated, and become accustomed to being handled before being passed to regiments such as the Household Cavalry or the King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery. Sick or tired horses also receive rest and recuperation at grass at Melton.
Of course, there is also the dog school. It supports 1,219 Army-trained dogs worldwide, of which 20 per cent. require to be replaced each year. The school trains both dogs and their handlers. More than 550 student handlers and between 240 and 260 dogs are trained each year. However, the staffing establishment remains small. The military personnel at Melton Mowbray are currently 135,


of whom 53 are members of the Women's Royal Army Corps. There are 33 civilians. Among the facilities available are free access for the Army to about 40,000 acres of commercial property and surrounding farmland, including many public and private premises in the town, which are made freely and willingly available by local people for specialised dog training.
Within the camp itself there is a purpose-built RYPE village on a 10-acre site, with a security fence, for training in arms and explosives searches. There are also 250 acres available for dog training within the estate. Quite deliberately, horses, cattle and sheep are kept grazing there, as that is an essential part of Army dog training. There is a former gun test range at Asfordby about a mile away, and 40 acres in size, which also provides important training facilities.
As there is such a formidable infrastructure of training and achievement, and such excellent results are being achieved, one might think that it would all be the subject of congratulations. Instead, there has been a relentless and restless determination by the Ministry of Defence to scrap it, or initially to merge the dog training with that of the Royal Air Force. The Ministry first studied the proposed merger, and rejected it, in 1966, but it dug up the roots again to inspect them in 1972, 1975 and 1977, and on each occasion confirmed the previous result.
In 1978, the Minister told the former Expenditure Committee that it would be a waste of time to re-examine the matter. However, its fingers remained itchy, and in March 1982, there was yet another review, which recommended a joint dog training school at RAF Newton and RAF Syerston, and that the horse activities at Melton should be contracted out, with the entire site being sold. Those drastic proposals fell apart in 1983, when a test trial of civilian dog handling proved a failure, and further studies found that moving the equine facilities was either impractical or more expensive, or both.
There were further studies on dogs alone in 1983, 1984 and 1985. In 1985, we actually got a decision, which was announced to Parliament by Lord Trefgarne and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who was then the Minister. On 9 July 1985, my hon. Friend announced in answer to me that all service dogs would be trained at RAF Newton by 1989, but under the command of an RAVC officer. He added that the equine activities would remain unchanged at Melton and
There are no plans to transfer these functions to any other location in the foreseeable future.
He added that the Army was grateful to the people of Melton Mowbray for their support of the RAVC and the pride that they had shown by granting the corps the freedom of the borough in 1977—an occasion at which I was present. My hon. Friend the then Minister said:
We look forward to the continuance of this happy relationship."—[Official Report, 9 July 1985, Vol. 82, c. 404.]
That was not good enough for me, and I reported the whole matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General, in my capacity as a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
There were then further Ministry studies, in 1986, 1987 and 1988, following ministerial recommendations or visits by Ministers to the RAVC. We have now had 12 separate

investigations since 1966. As the former permanent secretary, Sir Clive Whitmore, admitted to me at the Public Accounts Committee hearing on 30 March 1987:
We must have spent a great deal of money in the past investigating the possibilities of rationalising dog training.
He can say that again.
We now have the latest proposal by Peat, Marwick, McLintock to close the RAVC altogether, and set up a service animal centre at RAF Syerston, but with administrative support at RAF Newton. I have not seen the report, so I do not know what expertise, if any, its authors had in equine or dog training. First, the RAF has no horses so all the input from the horses to the service animal centre would come from the Army, but for 20 from the Marines.
Secondly, the RAF has no vets, and neither have the Marines. RAF Newton uses a civilian vet who visits twice a week, and he was living 100 milies away at the time of the 1985 inquiry. Only the RAVC has full-time military personnel in uniform who are qualified vets. There is no equine and canine hospital at Syerston, but there is one at Melton.
There is no equitation or farriery school at Syerston, although there is at Melton. There is no built-up urban environmental training facility at Syerston, which is a remote rural location. There are no officers' married quarters there—only a few NCOs' and airmen's quarters. There are no shops or welfare facilities, and the nearest doctor is seven miles away. All these things are fully and immediately available in Melton Mowbray, a growing town of nearly 30,000 people.
As for Syerston, one needs to cross the busy A46 road to get to the adjoining land where any training would be done. Syerston will need to provide all these facilities, or place them at RAF Newton and then transport the animals eight miles—wastefully—by road every day, a practice condemned on operational grounds by the Director of Army Veterinary Services in 1985. Incidentally, his professional report was suppressed by the then director of personnel, who declined to attach it to the working party report in 1985. I have seen the documents confirming that that was so.
No notice has been taken of the separate report by an independent expert, Mr. Pagliero, who was originally commissioned by Mr. R. L. Facer, who is still advising Ministers on this whole affair. Mr. Pagliero concluded that the Army's dog training was better than that of the RAF and that the work would be better done at Melton. Needless to say, the RAF and the MOD rejected this advice from an independent consultant, because it did not produce the conclusions that they wanted to hear.
As far as I can see, there are no operational advantages in the proposed course of action. I see very little point in a joint service animal school, anyway. The Army and RAF dogs are trained in different ways for different purposes. The different training techniques will have to continue separately, so why mess around with the present arrangements?
As for the horses, it is quite absurd to contemplate—even Lord Trefgarne did not—moving the horse facilities somewhere else, when they are working very well at Melton and would need total rebuilding in another place. I hope that the MOD also realises that the 33 civilian staff would probably be made redundant, since they are highly


unlikely to be able to move to Newton or Syerston. Yet they are highly trained and skilled, and used to dealing with animals.
Apart from all the new building infrastructure which will be needed, there will have to be new kennels, new paddocks and new fencing, and cattle and sheep will have to be available for training and for effective pasture management. The RAVC is also converting some of its buildings in order to move a laboratory to Melton Mowbray from Aldershot. What is to happen to it? Will my hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that he will give the highest priority to the expert veterinary advice which he receives on the project? That should be a paramount consideration.
The only possible reason for this upheaval seems to be the hope that the whole Melton site can be sold off for housing development. I have already explained to my hon. Friend why that is very unlikely; but I will not do the job of the consultant to the developers by explaining why here and now. If the Ministry wants to rationalise its estate, as the PAC has frequently urged it to do, let it start with all that wasteful property in London to which the National Audit Office drew attention in recently published reports. Perhaps the MOD could raise umpteen millions by selling the main building in Whitehall, which churned out a dozen reports on the RAVC in 20 years but produced no action.
I suggest that my hon. Friend contemplate what happened to the proposed move of the radar section at RAF North Luffenham to RAF Henlow; or the proposed move of the aviation medical centre at North Luffenham to RAF Mount Batten; or the proposed joint service music school. All these published plans fell apart under serious scrutiny by the NAO, the PAC and the Ministry itself. I strongly suspect that the same will happen with this cock-eyed scheme, and it might save a lot of staff time to drop it now.
I ask my hon. Friend to think of the effect on service morale of all this fiddling about. The RAVC has very important military duties to perform—against terrorism in Northern Ireland, and in Germany, Hong Kong and Cyprus. It does no good for the morale of the corps if it feels that its main unit at Melton is under threat. Many former members of the corps retire in the Melton Mowbray area, where they are popular and valuable members of the community. The RAVC unit makes a fine presence at the annual Remembrance day parade, and the commandant always takes the salute. In Melton, queen of the shires, where horses and dogs are a way of life for so many, the RAVC is an honoured and integral part. Only last April, the mayor of Melton and the leader of the council wrote in glowing terms to the Adjutant General of the Army about the RAVC.
My advice to my hon. Friend is to dump the plans. If he must proceed with an animal joint service centre, he should ask himself which unit has a veterinary hospital, a ripe village, 40,000 acres of free land, a farriery and equitation school and unrivalled expertise with dogs and horses. The answer, of course, is Melton Mowbray. We are proud of our vetcamp, as we call it. Let the new centre for all the armed services be based there, if there has to be one at all, but the best course of action would be the status quo, as was recommended to Ministers by Admiral Herbert, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in December 1984.
The present arrangements work well, so leave them alone. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it—a good message for a Conservative Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): The House will wish to join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on his persistence in drawing our attention to his constituents' views on any proposal to transfer the Royal Army Veterinary Corps away from Melton Mowbray. Not only has he raised the matter tonight, but he has closely monitored the progress of studies over many years by raising the matter in this House, by meeting me and my predecessors and by correspondence. Thanks to my hon. Friend I am in no doubt of the ties of mutual respect and affection which are the hallmarks of the relationship between the people of Melton Mowbray and the members of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. I join my predecessors in acknowledging this and in expressing my thanks to the people of Melton Mowbray for the warm support which they have always given to the corps. The spirit which has developed between the borough council, the people of the town and the Army would be impossible to overlook or lightly to cast aside.
However, it is our duty and our policy to ensure value for money over all defence activities, particularly those which support our front-line commitments. I am sure my hon. Friend, as a distinguished member of the Public Accounts Committee, would wish to encourage the Ministry of Defence in this direction—he has already indicated that tonight—especially where rationalisation of similar activities between one service and another enables us to manage the defence estate more efficiently and to obtain receipts from the sale of valuable land.
The size of the defence estate depends on the needs of the services and the procurement executive, but we are determined that it should be no larger than is necessary for the services to carry out their tasks efficiently and effectively. We vigorously pursue opportunities to dispose of land and buildings no longer required for defence purposes. In 1987–88 we raised more than £75 million by such sales and last year we doubled that figure to £150 million. Those sums are in addition to more than £400 million achieved in sales of land since 1979.
Ministry of Defence landholdings of some 600,000 acres account for about 1 per cent. of the total area of the United Kingdom. Some four fifths of that MOD land, however, is accounted for by airfields and training areas, and our main opportunities for reduction and rationalisation are therefore likely to occur in the remaining area, occupied by facilities such as depots, workshops and barrack accommodation. We are always seeking to identify opportunities for rationalisation in those areas, and decisions on future deployments take account of the estate costs, although our main consideration must be and remain the operational needs of the armed forces.
It was against that background that we decided, as my predecessor Lord Trefgarne announced in another place, to rationalise Army and RAF dog training in one location. As we have heard, the Army trains dogs and handlers at Melton Mowbray. The RAF trains dogs and handlers at RAF Newton, some 17 miles from Melton Mowbray. The tasks for which the dogs are trained at these two centres


have many similarities. Both services train dogs in guarding and in deterring and detecting intruders. Both services develop the scenting ability of dogs in order to detect the presence of drugs or explosives, and both services train dogs and handlers to a very high standard. That is not to say that there have been no differences in the training, but they seemed to be outweighed by the similarities.
The case for rationalisation in one location was compelling, therefore, but there remained doubts as to which location was the most suitable. Because of doubts expressed about whether RAF Newton, together with the nearby RAF Syerston, was the most economical location, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, commissioned consultants to undertake a review.
The consultants' study has been very thorough. They visited not only Melton Mowbray and RAF Newton but a number of operational units where dogs are employed, including a unit in Northern Ireland. They did this so that they could understand clearly what was expected of the personnel and animals trained at the two centres. They then studied every activity which led to the provision of the trained animal and trainer. Those included the testing and health checks of dogs, arrangements for their collection, rejection rates during training, the training syllabuses, and feeding and veterinary care of the animals. They discussed capital requirements with the training authorities, the service quartering branches and the Property Services Agency. They sub-contracted the assessment of development potential of the sites and of the prospective values to a firm of valuers with particular expertise in those matters. Representatives of the firm visited the sites and discussed development potential with officers of the responsible planning authorities.
At the end of that very thorough study, the consultants confirmed the validity of the decision taken by my noble Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces in 1985 that the sensible way to provide dog training in the future was to form a joint service school at RAF Syerston and RAF Newton. The consultants, however, have also taken account of the fact that dog and handler training is not the only activity undertaken at Melton Mowbray. The RAVC centre is also responsible for training horses and equitation instructors, as well as being the depot of the corps, responsible for the administration and management of officers, men and women serving in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. The consultants have shown that considerably greater savings can be achieved by also providing equine and equitation training and the RAVC depot facilities at the joint school, thus forming a service animal centre.
The investment appraisal carried out by the consultants shows that, while substantial savings in operating costs can be achieved by creating a service animal centre, the scale of the savings in capital costs depends on the value placed on land disposals. The consultants advised that there are prospects for development of the land now occupied by the RAVC centre at Melton Mowbray. My announcement, in my reply to my hon. Friend, on 13 July, of the intention to form a service animal centre enables my Department to enter into consultations with the local planning authority.
However, as I also said in my reply of 13 July, a further factor which must be borne in mind is the study into the future of the whole RAF estate. That study has the objective, to which I have already referred, of ensuring that we manage our estate as efficiently as possible and dispose of that which is no longer needed. We shall need to consider the consultants' recommendations concerning dog training and the formation of a service animal centre in the light of the outcome of the study into the RAF estate, particularly, of course, in so far as it affects Syerston and Newton.
A further factor touching on the use of Syerston is the effect on present activities there. RAF Syerston is currently used for gliding, including the training of gliding instructors for the air cadet corps. The provision of flying experience, including gliding, is a highly effective way of fostering young people's interest in careers in the Royal Air Force. The consultants' recommendation to form a service animal centre at Syerston assumed that the area there needed for facilities for gliding would be reduced. We are considering this, bearing in mind the need to ensure that equine and canine-related training on the one hand, and gliding instruction on the other, can be safely and satisfactorily collocated.
Despite the further work involved in deciding how best to implement the consultants' main recommendation, we should not lose sight of the benefits already emerging from the studies. Recommendations were also made concerning the most economical means of procuring dogs and the possibility of further civilianisation of support staffs. These recommendations are being considered by the services. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the implementation of certain other of the consultants' recommendations, concerning the common adoption of best practices, is expected to save at least £4 million in running costs over the next 10 years. This alone provides a remarkably good return on the effort we have invested in our studies on this subject. If we can now resolve the question of the location of the service animal centre, I am confident that we shall be able to provide training in the future that maintains existing high standards while savings to the defence budget accrue.
It would be wrong of me not to acknowledge, before concluding, that the uncertainty regarding the future arrangements for training dogs and handlers has given rise to some understandable concern among the people working at the RAVC depot Melton Mowbray and at RAF Newton. It is a great tribute to them all that they have nevertheless continued to maintain the highest standards. The results of some of the training provided at Melton Mowbray and at Newton will have been evident to the public in the very high standards of ceremonial drill and displays, for which the services are rightly renowned, but much of the work of dogs and their handlers is conducted in circumstances far less comfortable than display arenas, be it in the guarding of defence installations or in the search for drugs and explosives.
The operational effectiveness of dogs and handlers is of an equally high standard and I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the RAVC and the RAF provost branch alike on the excellent standards that they consistently maintain in training and handling service animals. I can assure them that I have very much in mind the need to resolve the present uncertainties as soon as possible.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the interest that he has shown, and I can assure him that I shall take full account of his views and advice when I make my decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.